Sitting of 29 November 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement on the prospects for the construction industry. [16469]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): The prospects for the United Kingdom construction industry are good despite the present economic uncertainties. The industry has enjoyed an extended period of growth and most industry experts forecast that this will continue. The industry continues to benefit from the rethinking construction process initiated by Sir John Egan.
    Mr. Swayne:I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware of the acute shortage of skilled operators for plant. What estimate has he made of the impact of the European physical agents vibration directive and, in particular, the European Parliament's amendment to the common position? What effect will that have on the industry, and what action is he going to take to defend the common position?
    Mr. Wilson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the use of vibratory tools and vehicles. Our position is not to support the amendment, which could in some cases result in only two or three hours' use of such tools and vehicles in a day. On the other hand, we must get a sense of balance on the construction industry. It does not have a good record on health and safety. He lifts his eyes heavenwards, but he should look at the statistics because many people are killed and injured in that industry, which is why Sir John Egan and I have made health and safety one of our top priorities, working with the industry to address that record. We should not lightly dismiss health and safety measures.
    As part of my responsibilities, I see the effect of vibration white finger on people who have been exposed to the uncontrolled use of vibratory tools. Let us not sneer
    1086
    at such matters. We should get a sense of balance. In this case, we believe that the balance has gone too far the other way, and we will work to redress that position.
    Mr. Michael Foster: The brand new hospital project in Worcester is nearing completion. At St. Barnabas primary school in my constituency four dilapidated mobile units are being replaced by four permanent classrooms. I understand that such projects are taking place up and down the land. What assessment has my hon. Friend received of the impact that such work will have on the construction industry?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. Record levels of investment are being made in health and education, some of which is going into construction projects up and down the country. I do not know the details of the specific project that he mentions, but a huge instrument in supporting that programme is the use of public-private partnerships. PPPs are justified because they offer value for money, make it possible to do so much more and, at the same time, generate tremendous activity in the construction industry.
    Having said that, some 40 per cent. of procurement in the construction industry comes from the public sector. We are working to ensure that that is done better and more effectively. If we can make sure that it is carried out on a more rational basis, we could have even more building projects, like the one that my hon. Friend mentions, for the amounts that are being invested. We have to do all that better and keep the levels of investment going. One of the biggest beneficiaries of that will be the construction industry and those who are employed in it.
    Bob Spink: Does the Minister accept the great value that self-employed construction workers add to our economy? If so, will he replace the IR35 legislation with something that really tries to tackle tax abuses in the system without unfairly impeding genuine people working in themn construction industry?
    Mr. Wilson: On this side of the House we believe in fairness in taxation and do not support devices to get around that. Of course there is a role for genuinely self-employed people in the construction industry, and many are in that position. However, we are much more sceptical about the role of companies that treat people as self-employed, relieve themselves of responsibilities towards those individuals and therefore use self-employment as a means of cutting cost. That is not fairness in taxation. It is also not fairness in employment.
    John Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Harvey report, which suggests that there are 300,000 to 400,000 bogus self-employed workers in the construction industry? Is he also aware that that has led to a deep fragmentation of the industry? There has been an undercutting of health and safety measures, and 105 people died on construction sites last year. That might not matter very much to the Opposition, but it certainly matters to us. Will my hon. Friend undertake to review the construction industry with our hon. Friends in the Treasury, and consider bogus self-employment in particular?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. Self-employment has a role; bogus

    1087
    self-employment does not, and it is far too deeply embedded in the practices of the construction industry. It is undoubtedly one of the factors that leads to the appalling safety record which, as he says, is so lightly treated by the Opposition. I am pleased that the safety issue is being taken seriously in the rethinking construction process, under the leadership of Sir John Egan.
    One of the major priorities of the rethinking production programme is to treat people with respect in the construction industry. If projects can be better planned and implemented, if more work can be done off-site and if we have proper employment practices in the industry, undoubtedly we shall reduce the disgraceful number of deaths that my hon. Friend mentioned. The process must be systematic and we must work with the industry. That is why the rethinking construction programme is so important.
    Mr. Robert Key: No one is sneering at industrial injury or vibration injury that is caused by anything from jack hammers to sewing machines. It was a Conservative Government who saw the beginning of a continuing process in 1994. The Government have brought us to a ridiculous position, where farms, factories, articulated lorries and forestry are involved. The construction industry will be ruined, and life will be made impossible for small family farmers. We expect the Minister of State to use the six-week conciliation period to go to Europe to sort out the problem, and stop the nonsense that is so damaging. It gives the European Union a bad name.
    Mr. Wilson: As it is a sworn role of the Conservative party in its current manifestation to give the European Union a bad name, whether fairly or unfairly, I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments. I absolve him. I am sure that he takes these issues seriously. However, I can assure him that the response of Members sitting behind him does no credit to his party.
    We take the issue seriously in terms of its impact on business. We also take health and safety issues seriously. I shall be pleased to work with the hon. Gentleman and those of his colleagues who share our concerns. We can surely cut across parties by addressing the fact that there are about 10 deaths a month in the construction industry. The industry also manages to kill one pedestrian every month. Surely we can do better than that, and we can do it by working together on a non-partisan basis.

    Aviation Industry
    Paul Goggins: What action she is taking to assist the aviation industry following the 11 September terrorist attacks. [16470]
    Mr. Wayne David: If she will make a statement on the progress which has been made in providing support to the aerospace and airline industries since 11 September. [16482]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): This Government were the first to underwrite insurance for UK airlines and service providers after 11 September to ensure that the airlines could continue flying. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions
    1088
    is considering whether further aid should be offered to the UK airline industry. We have been in close contact with the aerospace industry since 11 September, and will continue to work with it to help deal with the impact of the terrorist attacks and to ensure a strong future for the industry.
    Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend will know that this has been a difficult week for the aviation industry in the north-west, with the announcement of further job losses at BAE Systems and at Airtours. May I draw her attention to the plight of 620 staff at FLS Aerospace at Manchester airport who undertake essential aircraft maintenance work? They were recently served with 90-day notices.
    In welcoming the action that the Government are already taking, will my right hon. Friend join me in urging FLS to co-operate fully with the work force, Manchester Airport plc and other companies in striving to retain as many of these skilled jobs as possible?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right to say that these are difficult times for the airline and aerospace industry. I share his dismay at the impact of the terrorist atrocity upon his constituents and others who work in the industry, particularly those at FLS Aerospace. I understand that the company is hoping to avoid compulsory redundancies. We shall do everything possible to work with it to ensure that as far as possible these highly skilled workers stay in employment. Where that is not possible, we will do everything that we can to ensure that workers who are made redundant get new jobs as quickly as possible.
    Mr. David: I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. I am sure that she will share my concern about the fact that there have been 350 jobs losses announced at GE Aircraft Engine Services at Nantgarw near Caerphilly in south Wales. Will she say what discussions have taken place at a European level about possible support for the industry?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about the impact of the situation on his constituents and others at GEAES in south Wales. I understand that it is one of the world's leading companies in aero-engine repair and maintenance. I know that every help is being given in Wales to the company and its workers; my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Chancellor have both been in discussions with our counterparts in the European Community about what support should properly be given to the industry.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: Will the Secretary of State make a full statement on 1,000 jobs lost in my constituency this week at BAE Systems at Woodford? Will she comment on the further losses expected at Manchester airport, especially at FLS Aerospace and Airtours? How far are they due to 11 September, and what is she doing to ensure that the skills involved are not lost to the nation?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. We must all understand that the atrocity of 11 September and subsequent events have severely damaged the airline and aerospace industries. In north America, for example, there is a decline of 30 to 40 per cent.

    1089
    in passenger numbers; in Europe, the decline is between 10 and 20 per cent. We will continue to work with companies and affected workers to support them in every way that we can. However, I also stress to her that the aerospace industry in particular remains fundamentally strong. Despite the devastating job losses, particularly at British Aerospace, the longer-term future remains bright with new orders recently placed for Airbus, and Lockheed and its British partners securing the contract for the joint strike fighter. I am sure that she welcomes that as much as I do.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Secretary of State realise that it is not just British Aerospace? The sudden announcement today by Rolls-Royce will lead to problems, particularly in the Derby area, where a huge number of job losses were confirmed this morning; I know that she will be aware of that. Will she have urgent talks with her colleagues at the Ministry of Defence to see if there is any way in which some of those announcements can be alleviated by looking at defence contracts? Will they consider whether the defence industry could have a beneficial impact on the aviation industry, particularly at this severe time?
    Ms Hewitt: The announcement this morning of the job losses at Rolls-Royce is confirmation of an announcement made some weeks ago following the events of 11 September. We have already awarded £750.000 million to the east midlands taskforce, to help particularly with the appalling effect of those redundancies in Derby and Derbyshire. I have already had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on those matters.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a summit for the aviation industry and those who supply it with Is she aware of the job losses both in Lancashire and among suppliers? What hope can she give them of bringing forward orders such as those for large aircraft, which will bring the work back? Work on the joint strike fighter order is far away; we need work now if we are to continue in future.
    Ms Hewitt: I am, of course, aware of the redundancies to which my hon. Friend referred. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and other colleagues have done everything that they can to strengthen security at airports and restore passenger confidence in air travel. Fundamentally, that is the best way to assist the industry right through the supply chain. Of course, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and I will continue to work very closely indeed with the aviation and aerospace industries to see how we can support them in both the short and longer term.

    Regulatory Impact Assessments
    Mr. Christopher Chope: If she will meet the Small Business Service to discuss the recommendations of the National Audit Office report "Better Regulation: making good use of regulatory impact assessments"; and if she will make a statement. [16471]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I am discussing the NAO report with the Small Business Service. I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking me to make good use of regulatory impact assessments. How about this: RIAs have identified that 94 per cent. of the costs on business result from two measures, the national minimum wage and the working time directive? The first is now supported by the hon. Gentleman's party; the second is one on which the Conservatives abstained in Brussels in 1993.
    Mr. Chope: The Minister's typically complacent response to the serious recommendations of the NAO shows that the Government merely pay lip service to reducing the burden of regulation on small businesses, while that burden is increasing all the time. What will be done to ensure that the Small Business Service produces the report recommended by the NAO in recommendation 26. vii, and what action has the Department taken in response to the earlier recommendation of the better regulation taskforce that it become a champion of small retailers, who find that they are spending up to five full days every month dealing with Government administration?
    Nigel Griffiths: The NAO put the record straight and commended us for using regulatory impact assessments to avoid £150 million in costs to business on one measure alone. Of course it is important that we do everything that we can to minimise red tape. That is why we have appointed a Minister with responsibility for regulatory reform in every Department, established a ministerial panel for regulatory accountability, and passed the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 to provide a fast track for reducing burdens and scrapping outdated legislation. The hon. Gentleman speaks with some authority on the matter. When he was a Minister in the six years after 1986, 18,434 regulations were passed.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: Does my hon. Friend agree that small businesses are for ever complaining about the alleged burden of red tape? Can he update the House on the progress made by the deregulation unit in the Department of Trade and Industry?
    Nigel Griffiths: Good progress has been made. Many small businesses do not have the resources—the legal and accountancy advice—available to large businesses. That makes it necessary for every Government Department to think small first. It is important to remind the House, as my hon. Friend has done, that a great deal of valuable work has been carried out by Government. That is perhaps one reason why Arthur Andersen research shows the UK as the country that provides the most overall friendly entrepreneurial environment, fostering growth companies most effectively.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: The Small Business Service was set up less than two years ago to champion the interests of small business in Government. The Minister confirmed this morning that he will discuss the report with the Small Business Service. Can he explain why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State found it necessary to strip the Small Business Service of that role, leading directly to the resignation of

    1091
    its respected chief executive, Mr. David Irwin? Can he tell the House which crony of the Government his right hon. Friend intends to put in place of Mr. Irwin as the new small and medium-sized enterprise tsar?
    Nigel Griffiths: The Opposition spokesperson is wrong on both counts. The role of the Small Business Service has been strengthened, and Mr. David Irwin, who has shown excellent leadership and ensured that the Small Business Service is helping thousands of businesses through Business Links and other Government measures, has informed me that he is serving out his full contract. There is no question of him resigning.
    Ms Debra Shipley: What assessment would my hon. Friend make of the impact of the Chancellor's speech on small businesses in my Stourbridge constituency, bearing it in mind that half of them are located in the black country—a very deprived area?
    Nigel Griffiths: We must ensure that the communities for which my hon. Friend speaks enjoy the general economic prosperity. The Phoenix fund and other DTI measures are ensuring that companies get a chance to start and to grow in such communities. I know that she will welcome the simplification of tax for small business that was announced the day before yesterday, among other useful measures. The VAT simplification is helping up to 900,000 businesses, and the simplification of taxation for small businesses is helping up to half a million firms. I hope that all those measures will persuade more firms to locate in her constituency.

    Investment
    Mr. David Amess: If she will make a statement on changes in trends in inward investment into the UK in the last six months. [16472]
    The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): The trend in the past six months has been for overseas companies, especially from the United States, in the aftermath of 11 September, to delay plans for investing abroad. That reflects worsening global economic conditions. Invest UK continues to register successes and receive fresh inquiries from north America and our other traditional sources of foreign investment in Europe and Asia-Pacific. We are confident that we are maintaining the United Kingdom's position and attracting more inward investment than any other European nation.
    Mr. Amess: Sadly, I do not share the Minister's confidence. Will he explain to the House how, according to an Ernst & Young survey, the number of inward-investment projects coming to Britain has dramatically fallen in the past six months? Is not it a fact that, under the previous Conservative Government, there was a competitive advantage that this wretched and incompetent Government have completely frittered away as a result of increased taxation and more regulation and red tape?
    Alan Johnson: We are all in danger of getting vibration injury when the hon. Gentleman asks a question in the House. He has not kept abreast of what has been
    1092
    happening in the global economy in the past six months. With regard to his question, the OECD report published only this week stated that the UK was
    "better placed to weather the downturn than its other 29 members."
    The recent economic intelligence unit report confirmed that the UK has been one of the most attractive business locations in the world for the past four years and said that we were likely to remain so for the next four years. We are third in the world at attracting inward investment and the No. 1 in Europe. That is a splendid record, especially in comparison with that of the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. Andy Reed: While I recognise the importance of inward investment—as a former economic development officer, I can say that my colleagues and I spent a lot of time trying to attract it—does the Minister agree that the vast majority of jobs in constituencies such as Loughborough will come from the growth of local firms and, in particular, an innovation and science base in places such as universities? What measures is he taking to ensure that those firms and other places receive equal support in growing small and local jobs? In particular, may I refer him to companies such as DataLink Ltd. in my constituency, an engineering firm that has seen 37 per cent. growth last year and doubled its work force?
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point and speaks from some experience. We set out earlier this year in a White Paper our plans to help local businesses to develop the good ideas that emerge from our universities and translate them into good products on the market. In terms of inward investment, last year alone, Invest UK recorded 869 decisions to invest in the UK, which created 71,500 new jobs.
    Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that one of the major attractions of this country for inward investment is the UK offshore oil and gas industry for production and exploration? Does he also recognise that the maintenance of the current infrastructure in the North sea is vital to the success of that industry and to the viability and attractiveness of future inward investment, and that nothing must be done to close down prematurely any of that existing infrastructure or damage that attraction and the ability to get the full potential out of the North sea?
    Alan Johnson: In general, we have had some excellent announcements recently about investment in the North sea. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy tells me that he would be very pleased to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the specific points that he makes.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: The Minister completely failed to address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). The Ernst & Young study that showed the fall in inward investment is clear about what caused it. It points to declining competitiveness, rising costs and less flexible labour markets. The Financial Times has reported that, this year alone, about 8,000 jobs have been lost as a result of companies switching production to lower-cost countries overseas.

    1093
    Has it not come to something when even the European Commission reports that the regulatory burden in Britain is heavier than anywhere else in the whole European Union? Are we not now paying the price for that in lost business, investment and jobs?
    Alan Johnson: I tend to think that behind that question is the suggestion that the introduction of the national minimum wage, and of the right to four weeks' paid holiday a year, is somehow affecting our competitive position in the world. That is just not the case. The previous Conservative Government had a pitiful record on attracting foreign inward investment. Under the Tories, foreign direct investment dropped to £7 billion in 1994. Under this Government, it had rocketed to £88 billion in 2000. We need no lessons from the Opposition on attracting inward investment.
    Andy Burnham: The Minister is aware of the problems of the decline in manufacturing industry in my constituency, and I am grateful for his help in addressing them. Is he aware of the good news of the increasing role that small local companies are playing in my constituency—particularly innovative local companies that have gone from being small businesses to medium-sized businesses, such as Patak's, and Waterfields Bakeries? How does the Department propose to recognise and reward innovative good practice in small companies, and turn good ideas into business success stories?
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of our main projects to encourage small businesses to innovate and be more creative is the SMART award—the small firms merit award for research and technology. I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend will release details later today of the latest 37 companies to benefit from the DTI SMART funding scheme. The SMART award has increased annual turnover in the economy by £2.4 million for every £1 million invested. It has boosted annual turnover and annual exports, and is part of the Government's commitment to help companies to turn new ideas and technology into prosperity and jobs.

    Nuclear Waste (Liabilities)
    Mr. Michael Jack: If she will make a statement on the arrangements for making adequate financial provision for future liabilities for the disposal of nuclear waste. [16473]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): Provisions for future liabilities for the disposal of nuclear waste continue to be the responsibility of the individual nuclear operator concerned, be that public sector bodies such as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc, or private sector bodies such as British Energy. However, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House yesterday about the future management of public sector civil nuclear liabilities.
    Mr. Jack: I am delighted that the tabling of my question prompted the Secretary of State's early
    1094
    announcement. Has the Minister seen any of the comments by Friends of the Earth following that announcement? It claims that British Nuclear Fuels plc was bankrupt and
    "an expensive and highly dangerous liability".
    It also suggested that there should be no new nuclear development. Will the Minister take this opportunity to rebut those claims by Friends of the Earth? Will he also put on record that THORP and MOX have a good commercial future, and that his right hon. Friend' s announcement yesterday should in no way be taken as a barrier to the further development of civil nuclear power in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Wilson: From what the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, I would have thought that, by Friends of the Earth's standards, that response was fairly mild. Some people are irrevocably opposed to the nuclear industry in all its forms, and they will make their statements, comments and allegations. They certainly do not cause us to deviate from the course of securing a balanced energy policy for this country. The decision fully to go ahead with MOX was based on a report that demonstrated its significant viability and on the fact that most of the business was already in place. So I do not take those claims seriously. I believe that BNFL will have a successful future in the form in which it will operate, and I pay tribute to the work force and the management who, in recent times, have turned round many of the problems that undoubtedly existed.
    Mr. David Drew: I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Will my hon. Friend the Minister recognise the complexities of the nuclear industry and the need to consider its different component parts? The Magnox headquarters at Berkeley is in my constituency. Will he open his door, so that we can examine how properly to evaluate the way in which the industry should go forward from here? Such discussions are urgently needed.
    Mr. Wilson: The energy review being undertaken by the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit is under way, and the nuclear industry and the wide range of questions attached to it is only one of the areas it is covering. My door is always open for discussions. A Magnox power station in my constituency is being decommissioned, so I would be pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend the future of Magnox, BNFL or any other aspect of the industry.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Yesterday the Secretary of State twice refused to answer this question, so perhaps the Minister will do so now. Does he accept that there is no possibility of proposals for new nuclear development being made until the Government take a decision on their strategy for handling radioactive waste, whatever the PIU report says in a couple of months? How can he justify the delay of up to seven years proposed by the Minister for the Environment, which will prolong uncertainty in the industry and put a blight on it?
    Mr. Wilson: I certainly do not think that my right hon. Friend avoided the question in any way, but it is somewhat pejoratively posed. In our view, there is no

    1095
    sequential arrangement that nothing will happen in the nuclear industry until the waste report appears; nor do I recognise the figure of seven years. Clearly, it is desirable to get answers on waste in a shorter time frame, working both nationally and internationally, but no one currently is making proposals for nuclear power stations. However, they may at any time and they certainly are not prevented from so doing by the factors to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    If there is to be nuclear new build in this country, the time scale for working up those proposals and having them properly considered long before construction would itself be substantial. If such developments are to happen—that is a commercial judgment for the companies involved—there is no reason to suppose that they would happen sequentially; they could happen in parallel.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Does my hon. Friend agree that yesterday's announcement on civil liabilities frees BNFL to become the world-class company that we all believe that it should be, secures thousands of jobs around the country and opens up the opportunity for BNFL to lever in other expertise and begin a real attack on the foreign markets, particularly in the old eastern bloc where there are billions of pounds to be made by exploiting British expertise in the clean-up of those countries?
    Mr. Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Much of the thinking behind the statement that my right hon. Friend made yesterday involved ensuring that BNFL can get on with its business, that morale can be raised and that there is no shadow hanging over the company. On that basis, there is a great deal of interesting and potentially profitable work to be done. That is the role for BNFL, and it will enable the skills and excellence in the company to flourish.

    Sellafield
    Mr. Michael Weir: If she will delay support for the extension of the MOX facility at Sellafield, pending the results of the energy review. [16475]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): No. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced their decision on the justification of MOX manufacture on 3 October. The commissioning and operation of the Sellafield MOX plant is now a matter for BNFL, subject to the satisfaction of the relevant regulators.
    Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that, whatever our personal views on nuclear power, it is folly to proceed with the plant before the energy review group reports on whether the UK should have further new nuclear power stations? I do not know about him, but we do not yet know what the review group will recommend, and pressing ahead with the plant has already caused concern about pollution in the Irish sea. I believe that two court cases have been brought by the Irish Government, and, obviously, new possibilities as to the operation of the MOX plant have been raised following 11 September. Would it not be the ultimate irony if the energy review group recommended against
    1096
    new nuclear stations in the UK while the new plant is allowed to operate, manufacture and reprocess fuel for others?
    Mr. Wilson: I see no such irony. The case for the MOX plant has been fully tested and it was recently subject to an independent economic consultancy report, which found the project to be very healthy economically. Many problems that the hon. Gentleman claims to exist have been tested in the courts in response to an action by Greenpeace, which was thrown out.
    It was not the Irish Government but the Irish political party Fianna Fail that put out advertisements at the weekend. According to Ireland's own competent monitoring body, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, at the highest estimate Sellafield would account for less than 2 microsieverts per year. The average intake in Ireland is estimated to be between 2,000 and 20,000 per year. I think that that puts things into proportion.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree, in the context of the energy review, that if we are to focus firmly on security of supply as well as on environmental matters, it is essential for us to maximise the extraction of gas from the North sea, and also to push ahead with renewables such as offshore—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The main question is about Sellafield. The Minister cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Both the thermal oxide reprocessing and the mixed oxide plants are to be transferred to the new Liabilities Management Authority. What will be the commercial arrangement between the LMA and BNFL for the operation of those plants? Will BNFL operate them on a management contract basis, with the LMA taking the risk, or will BNFL continue to shoulder any losses, although it will no longer own the plants?
    Mr. Wilson: The details of the arrangements will be in the White Paper to be published in the spring, but there is certainly a commitment to transparency. That is part of the reason for the establishment of the LMA: the aim is to separate historic liabilities from current and future liabilities, and to apply that same principle of transparency within the authority.

    Postal Services
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What steps she is taking to improve postal services. [16476]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We have given the Post Office greater commercial freedom so that it can improve its services and performance. We have established a new independent regulator, which has set tough standards of service for Consignia and is monitoring them closely. New licensed operators will also help to give consumers more choice and better services.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: When I tell the Secretary of State that the Edinburgh postcode area recently topped the

    1097
    UK-wide list of complaints about delivery services, she will understand my concern. What progress is being made with the implementation of the conclusions of the performance and innovation unit review of postal services? May I ask her to intervene in the meantime, and ask Consignia to improve delivery services for my constituents?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. The service currently provided by Consignia is simply not good enough. The PIU report, which he mentioned, was more to do with the future of the post office network than with Royal Mail deliveries, but we are working effectively with the company to implement the recommendations. The "Your Guide" pilot, in particular, will help those using post offices to obtain information on a wide range of other Government services. That is going very well.
    Let me make it clear that I expect management and unions, which have been asking for more commercial freedom for years, to work together to use the freedom that we have given them to deliver a better service to customers, in my hon. Friend's constituency and everywhere else.
    Mr. Richard Page: Does not that response show how far adrift the Secretary of State is from reality? Is she not aware that over the last two years there has been a record number of sub-post office closures? Is she not aware of the appalling industrial relations that have led to poor deliveries? During the last election, many of my constituents in the Watford area did not receive their postal votes. Is she not aware of the record losses of Parcelforce, which are hitting day after day? Is she not aware of the international competition that is coming along? Is she not aware of Monday's announcement of Consignia's losses, £100 million of which are operating losses? That is particularly important and worrying.
    Will not the Secretary of State do the decent thing—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.
    Ms Hewitt: I am not going to take any lectures on the Post Office's performance from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who had the opportunity when they were in government to give the Post Office the commercial freedom that the management and the unions wanted. If the previous, Conservative Government had done that when it should have been done, years ago, the company could have begun to get a grip on what are very deep-seated problems.
    I make it very clear that steps have already been taken to strengthen Consignia's management and improve the company's performance. Earlier this year, a new finance director, Marisa Cassoni, joined the board, and the company is now recruiting a chief executive for the new Post Office Ltd. to run the post office network. We have also appointed Allan Leighton as a non-executive director to take a special interest in the post office network. Consignia's chairman, Dr. Neville Bain, who has led the company through this first stage of reform and
    1098
    modernisation, will stand down as chairman when his term expires at the end of this year. We will appoint a new chairman as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment in the half-yearly figures that have been announced? In some respects, she has anticipated my comment that the patience of many of us who regard ourselves as defenders of a public postal service is becoming severely strained. We require drastic steps of an even more far-reaching character than those that she has announced to ensure that the postal service can be successful in the public sector.
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view of Consignia's results which were announced on Monday. They were disappointing and reflect the deep-seated problems within the company and the challenges facing it in a rapidly changing market for postal services not only in the United Kingdom but across Europe. I am glad to say that, in the wake of the report by Lord Sawyer on industrial relations in the firm, management and unions have started to work together much more effectively. They have just renewed the commitment to a moratorium on those industrial difficulties. I have made it quite clear that we expect, and the independent regulator also expects, the company significantly to improve its performance. I hope that that is precisely what the management and the unions together will now deliver.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that one of the consequences of the disastrous losses being recorded at Consignia is that it will no longer be able to sustain by cross-subsidy the universal service obligation under which letters are delivered across the United Kingdom at a constant rate? Does she intend to intervene to ensure that the Post Office's social obligations in that respect are fully maintained?
    Ms Hewitt: I do not accept the assumption in the hon. Gentleman's question, but remind him that the first duty of the regulator whose post we created in the Postal Services Act 2000 is to maintain the universal service obligation. The regulator will ensure that that universal service is indeed delivered right across the country.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right to take no lessons from Opposition Members, certainly on the issue of post office closures. However, although the action that she is taking is very welcome, there is a mounting crisis not only in rural post offices but in urban sub-post offices, which are under enormous pressure because of profitability and other external factors such as crime. What action can the Government take to ensure that we maintain a high-quality and well-represented sub-post office network in urban areas such as mine where that network is vital?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the enormous importance of post offices not only in rural communities but in deprived urban areas, including parts of my own constituency. The service delivered by local post offices to deprived and remote local communities is essential. He will be aware, of course, that there has been a welcome reduction in the rate of closures and that we are taking steps, including a formal requirement placed on

    1099
    the Post Office, to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures. We are also working closely with the post office network—for example, in the "Your Guide" pilot to which I referred in an earlier answer—to strengthen and expand the services that local post offices can offer and thus attract more people to them.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am glad that the Secretary of State said that she believes in rural sub-post offices, but is she aware that many of those offices in Norfolk and Suffolk are threatened as a direct consequence of the Government's decision to pay pensions and other benefits by direct debit? Surely that is another example of a Government with urban-based values who do not understand the countryside.
    Ms Hewitt: That is nonsense and I regret that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the real benefits to be gained by modernising the system of benefit payments, including of course the reduction of fraud. We are working with Postcomm, as recommended by the PIU report, to ensure that financial assistance is given to post offices in rural communities to sustain that network. We have already invested nearly £500 million pounds in modernising the post office network and we have ring-fenced a further £250 million for support of the rural network and modernisation of the urban network.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I know that Consignia can work, because when a post office in my constituency closed, it acted quickly and reopened it within a week, following a campaign led by me. In Slough, one in six first-class letters are not delivered on the following day and there is no way that the Christmas post will be delivered. I met the local management of the Post Office yesterday, who at present are blaming its staff. The Post Office is not delivering for the people of Slough. What message does my right hon. Friend have for it to ensure that the Post Office locally delivers and that the post is delivered to addresses in my constituency?
    Ms Hewitt: I must congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of her campaign in getting her post office reopened. As I have already said, I entirely share her concern and that of other hon. Members about the failure in some parts of the country to deliver the post on time or indeed, in some cases, to deliver it at all. The responsibility is on the management and unions to work together, as they are now doing much more effectively, to build on the recommendations of the Sawyer report on industrial relations to take advantage of the commercial freedom that our Government have given them and to ensure that they deliver both the post and better results.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: I invite the Secretary of State to rejoin the real world. Against a background of losses of £10 million a week, the consistent failure to hit delivery targets and truly dreadful industrial relations in the Post Office, does she agree with the view of the new boss of Royal Mail, who says that the second daily postal delivery is a "myth" and
    "There is no such thing as a second delivery"?
    Ms Hewitt: I have already made it clear that we have given the Post Office the commercial freedom for which it has long been asking and which, I regret to say, the
    1100
    Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported did not give it. It is a matter for Consignia to make firm proposals—at the moment, it is simply floating ideas—and the independent regulator that we have established will decide whether to accept those proposals, bearing in mind the statutory duty that we have placed on him to ensure that universal service s maintained.

    Sub-post Offices
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What recent representations she has received from rural sub-post office operatives; and if she will make a statement. [16477]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry receives correspondence on a range of issues from numerous people working in the rural sub-post office network.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that most unhelpful reply. Despite the tinkering at the edges by his Department to try to ensure that the rural network of post offices remains, 929 post offices have closed in the past two years. That is twice as many as in the two previous years. That means that the Government's initiatives are failing, and I question whether they really want to keep those post offices.
    Mr. Alexander: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do wish to maintain the rural network and I can clarify the figures for him. I welcome in particular the reduction in the rate of closures that we have witnessed recently—175 in the first half of this year, compared with 299 in the first half of last year. The Welsh figures may also be of interest to him. There were 13 closures in the first half of this year, compared with 68 last year.
    I would argue that the Government are determined to take real action to address some of the challenges that have been mentioned today. We commissioned the PIU report and accepted all its recommendations. There is now a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network. We have established a new £2 million fund for community ownership, and rural transfer advisers are now working in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and many others around the country.
    The contrast could not be clearer between this Government's actions and the inaction and negligence of the previous Conservative Government, under whom 3,500 rural post offices closed between 1979 and 1997.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I have represented my largely rural constituency for 22 years, and I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that post offices have always been under pressure. The rate of closure of rural post offices was far greater under Conservative Governments, when most rural services deteriorated substantially too. I am delighted with the Government's plans to ensure that rural post offices do not close as quickly as has been the case, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not underestimate the very big backlash that will be felt in rural areas if we fail in what we are trying to do.
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly accept what my right hon. Friend has said, not least in terms of the importance that

    1101
    rural communities attach to their sub-post offices. However, the contrast could not be clearer between the actions of this Government, who have ring-fenced £270 million to meet the challenge, and those of the Conservative party, both in government and out.
    Last night, I took the opportunity to look at the Conservative election manifesto to find out what active proposals that party had for supporting the rural network. The Opposition had one proposal—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise the Minister that it is not for him to tell us the policy of the Conservative party.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister confirm that the date for the transfer of benefit payments to automated credit transfer remains April 2003? If so, when does he expect the systems for the Post Office card account to be operational?
    Mr. Alexander: I can confirm the timetable for the universal bank, and that a great deal of detailed work is being done on the specific issues of systems and of the migration strategy that will ensure a smooth transition.

    Pay Claims (NUM)
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What correspondence her Department has received in the past three months concerning claims for equal pay for National Union of Mineworkers cleaners and canteen workers. [16478]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): The Department has received in the region of 250 representations on this issue.
    Mr. Barnes: I am aware of the squabble between Arthur Scargill and my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter. Arthur Scargill claims that promises were made by my hon. Friend's predecessor that have not been lived up to. The Government have said that the claims from the former cleaners and canteen workers were not submitted in time by the NUM.
    Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the matter, should not the cleaners' and canteen workers' claims be met? We are not talking about people who are wealthy, unless the odd one happens to have won the lottery.
    Mr. Wilson: I do not accept that there has been a squabble. The simple fact is that 1,300 claims were registered and have been met, at a cost of £14 million. Unfortunately, many claims were not registered. Sad to say, the responsibility for that lies not with this Government or even their predecessors, but with the unions representing the workers. That has left the ladies involved in a difficult position. I continue to meet them and to search for a rational solution to the problem. I have no doubt that the people concerned suffered unfairness, but my basic problem is that the claims were not registered.
    I am sure that all hon. Members know that many claims, with different circumstances but equal validity, are made to industrial tribunals and are time-barred. To create one category of time-barred claims that are accepted because we feel that the people involved were hard done by would leave another category of people—many tens of thousands of them—whose claims had been time-barred for different reasons in an equally anomalous and unfair position. We are trying to find a solution, but it is not easy.
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I fully accept what my hon. Friend the Minister says, but there are a number of elderly canteen workers in my constituency who failed to get their compensation claims in in time. They see the colleagues with whom they worked receiving generous compensation, and it was not the workers' fault that the claims were not submitted in time. Does the Minister think that he could come up with a small amount of compensation to ensure that these people get a fair solution to the problem? It is within his power and he should do it in the name of fairness.
    Mr. Wilson: As I have just explained, in resolving one unfairness I would create another unfairness—unfairness to everybody else who has a tribunal claim time bar. There is no general power to waive the fact that no claims were registered. There must be specific grounds that would give a basis for these claims that would satisfy any accounting officer or auditor. We are looking at this and constantly meeting miners' representatives. I recognise the sense of injustice, but the fundamental problem is that these claims were never registered. Perhaps the people who failed to register these claims should begin to take some responsibility. I simply point out that the NUM has had a generous payment made to it for its administrative role in what would appear to be generally not registering claims.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 DECEMBER—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day] until 7 o'clock on a subject of which we have yet to be notified. Followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Mismanagement of Wembley Stadium, Pickett's Lock and the Dome", also on an Opposition motion.
Mr. Forth: Ah!
Mr. Cook: I presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was aware of that.
TUESDAY 4 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Education Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER—A debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 6 DECEMBER—A debate on the Common Fisheries Policy Reform and Sustainable Fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 7 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Tax Credits Bill.
TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on waste management policy until 7 o'clock followed by a debate on the staging of the world athletics championships in the United Kingdom. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. The estimates to be agreed are as follows: Winter Supplementary Summary Request for Supply (HC 391), Vote on Account (For Generality of Government Departments) (HC 392), Vote on Account (House of Commons) (HC 393), Vote on Account (National Audit Office) (HC 394) and Vote on Account (Electoral Commission) (HC 395).
WEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
A Debate on International Terrorism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Animal Health Bill.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
FRIDAY 14 DECEMBER—The House Will not be sitting.
The House will wish to know that on Monday 3 December there will be a debate relating to the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant document will be given in the Official Report.
1104
[Monday 3 December 2001]:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union Documents: 13425/01, European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-vii (2001–02) and HC 152-viii (2001–02).
Further to my earlier announcement about the Christmas recess, I can now confirm that the House will rise for the Christmas recess on Wednesday 19 December.
The House will also wish to know that subject to the progress of business the House will not sit during the week commencing Monday 18 February 2002.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader for giving us the business and the joyous news about recesses.
Yesterday in answer to a rather loosely worded question, the Prime Minister confirmed at column 964 that he was committed to raising health expenditure to the European Community average by 2005. That leaves us completely in the dark as to what that commitment means. Was it a reference in cash terms? Was it a commitment to a percentage of gross domestic product as it will be in 2005? We need to know these things because there has been a lot of speculation as such large sums are involved. Will the Leader of the House provide time for an urgent statement to clarify what the Prime Minister meant, whether he has the Chancellor's support and agreement, how much money is involved and where it will come from? Before we embark on the great debate on health, which we all welcome, we need to know those key facts.
Hidden away in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report is a reference to the increase in council tax—in local taxation—which suggests yet another alarming increase in the level and amount of council tax. That increase seems to be more every year. I suspect that the increase in local taxation will swallow up entirely what the Chancellor was boasting, the other day, would be an increase in pensions. We need an urgent debate on that, to establish—if nothing else—whether pensioners will be better off as a result of what the Chancellor was claiming, or whether, as I suspect, all the increases will more than disappear in the enormous increases in council tax that we are now getting.
Mr. Speaker, you said yesterday—very helpfully for the House—
"when Ministers refuse to answer questions, they are expected to indicate in their reply why they have refused by reference to the Government's code. The Public Administration Committee regularly looks into the pattern of answering and makes a report to the House. Again, Members aggrieved at a ministerial refusal to answer might get in touch with the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright)".—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375. c. 971.]
That was a very helpful suggestion, for which we are all most grateful. What I should now like the Leader of the House to do is to commit himself, and to guarantee, that we will have a regular slot for the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee to come to the House and initiate a debate on ministerial refusal to answer questions. I am confident—although I am sad to have to say this—that there are so many such incidents that the report will be voluminous and will require detailed answers from the Government as to why Ministers have refused to answer questions.
Finally, it has been brought to my attention that, in the past, we have normally held our fisheries debate on the basis of a take-note motion, where the House had an

1105
opportunity to vote. For reasons that I think I well understand, it would appear that the Government have magicked that into an Adjournment debate, where the House will not have an opportunity to vote. What is the Leader of the House ashamed of? What have the Government got to hide? Why will they not submit themselves to the opinion, the view and the vote of the House on such an important issue as fisheries, but instead try to slip it through by some sleight of hand? We need to know.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for greeting what he described as the joyous news about the recesses. We are approaching the season when joyous news is appropriate, although I ask myself how he and I will pass that time without being able to exchange views every Thursday.
Mr. John Bercow: With great difficulty.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is probably correct.
On the issue of NHS spending, the position is not confused—
Mr. Forth: Oh!
Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman is confused, let me try to elucidate. The commitment that was originally given by the Prime Minister, and to which I understand the leader of the Liberal Democrats was alluding, was that within five years of March 2001 we would be at the average for European spending on the health service—that is an average expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product. I am pleased to inform the House that, over the past four years, we have been able to approach that average at the rate of 0.1 per cent. of GDP each year, so we are on course to meet the average—[Interruption.] No, we are on course to meet the average by the time that my right hon. Friend mentioned. I am entertained that Opposition Members should find that they are not impressed by 0.1 per cent. of GDP as an increase. That may of course reflect the fact that during their period in office they never came remotely near increasing NHS spending by 0.1 per cent.—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman and I can put a date in our diaries for the debate in March 2006 when we see whether we have achieved that target. All I can tell the House at present is that we are on course, and in five years I look forward to receiving the right hon. Gentleman's congratulations on our having succeeded—
Mr. Forth: That is not what the Prime Minister said.
Mr. Cook: I have repeated what the Prime Minister said initially—in five years from March 2001.
On council tax, I can inform the House that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will be making a statement on council allocations on Tuesday next week. I suggest that hon. Members do not get particularly excited about what they may read in the papers before the announcement.
I listened with great care to what the Speaker said yesterday in relation to questions. I also noted that he invited colleagues to raise the matter with the hon.
1106
Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), as the Procedure Committee is carrying out a major study of questions. Obviously, that is a legitimate matter for the Committee to consider and I am sure that we shall return to it. In the meantime, I am pleased to tell the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I shall be meeting the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee next week and no doubt if he wants to express views to me I shall be happy to listen to them.
Lastly, I have no strong views on whether the fisheries policy is debated on the Adjournment of the House on a take-note motion. I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's views to heart and consider them, but the House can divide on an Adjournment motion if it wishes, and it has done so frequently.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am sure that the Leader of the House heard the exchanges with the Minister for Industry and Energy just before half-past 12, in relation to the payments of equal value for the canteen workers and cleaners. Does my right hon. Friend think that, as the matter has not been fully cleared up, the Minister needs to make a full statement so that we can explain to him that, in the House of Lords judgment in the mid-1990s, when almost every pit in Derbyshire closed and the structure of the National Union of Mineworkers had been completely destroyed, no one was available to tell those canteen workers of their rights, despite the fact that the House of Lords called on Ministers to use a broad-brush approach and make ex gratia payments?
Ex gratia payments have been a feature of every Government since I have been a Member of Parliament. There is no bar to them. If my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy needs a way round this, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) provided it for him a few weeks ago. This is a very important moral issue. The people who worked in the canteens, who saw the industry smashed, the structure of the NUM destroyed and who were unable to make their claims, should be allowed to make them, just like those 400 people in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere who managed to get ex gratia payments.
Mr. Cook: I understand the concerns of those who have not been included in the payments. I remind the House that the Government have fully met their commitment that they would make such payments to all those who were included in the submission that was made to the courts. I understand my hon. Friend's feelings in relation to those who were not included in the several hundred who were submitted to the court. As I entered the Chamber, there was a considerable and vigorous exchange on this matter. I am sure that it will continue to be a matter of debate and that he will, no doubt, look for other opportunities, such as that which he has just taken, to press the point.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I ask the Leader of the House to clarify the arrangements for announcing the subjects of Opposition Supply days. The business statement indicated that no subject has yet been allocated for the first half of the debate on Monday, so it seems that many Members will find out what the subject

1107
is only when they come to the House and read the Order Paper. Will that now be standard practice? If so, the Liberal Democrat party will take advantage of that, too.
The exchanges this afternoon, as well as those earlier in the week, show the essential need for a full day's debate on the economy, which we always used to have at this time of year, whenever the Chancellor made a major statement. Indeed, the exchanges that have just taken place reinforce that view.
There are few advantages of sitting on the Opposition Benches compared with sitting on the Government Benches, but the Leader of the House may like to note that one advantage is that we can see the expressions on the faces of his colleagues when the Prime Minister answers questions. The expression on the Chancellor's face when his right hon. Friend replied to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) was a picture to behold. It is therefore clear that some questions remain to be answered by the Chancellor and his colleagues, and that that debate on the economy is surely urgent.
Finally, may I ask the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that if, as seems likely, the Lords messages on Wednesday 12 December contain some extremely important views from them on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, not least from his Labour colleagues in the other place, we will be able to give them precedence over the debate on the international situation? That latter debate is simply on the Adjournment of the House. The issues that relate to that Bill are, of course, matters for votes, and I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that those critical issues should not be rushed through the House, especially after our experiences in recent weeks. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be proper time for debate and Divisions on those extremely important issues and that, if necessary, the debate on the international situation will be moved to the next day, when there need not be a vote?
Mr. Cook: It is important that the House should have another full day's debate on international terrorism, because there is a lot of unfinished work yet to be done. I know that many Members will wish to take part in the debate, and we have had a full turnout on previous occasions. I would be reluctant to lose any time from that debate.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Lords messages. I think that I am correct in saying that, at present, no amendments have been made to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in the House of Lords. We must obviously monitor the situation closely and consider where we are if amendments are carried. At present, however, I see no reason to interfere with the arrangements that I have outlined.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on studying the faces of my honourable colleagues. We welcome close scrutiny of our faces in all circumstances and at all times. If anything, I have probably had rather more comment in the press about my face than I would necessarily have volunteered for. I can only repeat that the Government are on course to deliver their target, which is a matter of unity among my colleagues.
I share the hon. Gentleman's surprise about the position in which I have been placed in relation to Monday's business. I cannot recall an occasion in my time when we
1108
have been left in the dark about what the Opposition wish to debate. There is a case for perhaps turning up for a mystery debate. However, if the Opposition really knew what they wanted to criticise the Government on, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should have been able to tell us today.
Mr. John Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the matter of the British Government's contribution to the World Health Organisation study into deep vein thrombosis related to air travel? I have received a letter pointing out that the House will be notified shortly as to what that contribution will be. However, I draw his attention to the fact that the first study group will meet in Geneva on 13 December, so it would be appropriate for the Government to report to the House before then.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the assiduity with which he has pursued a very serious issue that is of great public concern. I note what he says about the forthcoming meeting and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to his comments.
Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked the Government for an early statement to clarify their policy on health. In his response, the Leader of the House, far from clarifying it, confused the position. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked to commit
"himself to raising health expenditure in our country to the European average by 2005. Is that still the policy of his Government?"
He replied:
"Of course it is."—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375. c. 964.]
A few moments ago, the Leader of the House said that the year was 2006. Which is it?
Mr. Cook: As I understand it, the leader of the Liberal Democrats asked my right hon. Friend to confirm the commitment that he gave in 2000 to meeting the average of gross domestic product spent on health.
Mr. Forth: No.
Mr. Cook: That is exactly the question that the leader of the Liberal Democrats asked the Prime Minister. In 2000, my right hon. Friend said that we would meet that target within five years of the end of that financial year, so we will meet it in the financial year 2005–06. There is no room for divide here.
Mr. Michael Clapham: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 454?
[That this House recognises this Government's endeavour to improve health and safety in the workplace; and welcomes the campaign by Prospect to increase the resources available to the HSE to improve the

1109
effectiveness of inspectors to cut deaths and injuries at work as well as to reduce the number of people suffering work-related ill health; and recognises that if the targets set out in Revitalising Safety and Health and Securing Health Together are to be met there must be more inspectors in the field and more resources for the HSE as well as local authority inspectors to ensure working people are safe at work.]
The early-day motion stands in my name and supports the campaign run by the trade union, Prospect, which represents employees of the Health and Safety Executive. It calls more for resources for the executive.
Last year, fatalities in industry increased by 32 per cent., but the number of inspectors out in the field is only 613. There is a drastic need for more resources so that we can recruit more inspectors. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on health and safety at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Cook: That is a matter of great concern and interest to those who work in industries that have a poor health and safety record. I commend the HSE's work, which I know at first hand from my constituency. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to making sure that the HSE can fulfil the functions that Parliament confers on it. It that means resources, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will consider that.
Mr. John Baron: May I press the Leader of the House on the Government's timetable for raising health expenditure to the EU average? The Prime Minister clearly stated yesterday, as Hansard records, that that would happen by 2005. Yet today, the Leader of the House says that the timetable has slipped by a full year—in 24 hours. Can the statement be clarified?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to repeat my earlier comments that the commitment that my right hon. Friend confirmed yesterday was made not yesterday but in 2000. He said that in the financial year 2005–06, we would meet the European average. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I find it entertaining that Conservative Members, who fought the general election on a commitment to cut health spending, ask us when we will succeed in raising it to the European average. If Conservative Members ever got their hands on the Dispatch Box, we would not approach the European average but fall away from it.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the problem of the growing waiting lists in the Bradford metropolitan district for Asian women who want to learn English? They are enthusiastic about it, but they frequently have to wait for more than a year to join one of the excellent classes in the adult education centres.
Mr. Cook: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend about the importance of that. It is part not only of integration but emancipation for Asian women that we make all possible opportunities available to them to learn English and achieve the skills and qualifications that they need to play a full part in our society. Britain has gained immensely
1110
from the rich contribution to our economy of Asians who have made Britain their home. We should give them every opportunity to use their talents.
Sir Michael Spicer: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider providing time to discuss the impact of data protection legislation on Members of Parliament when they carry out their constituency work? I am sure that he knows that there is growing anxiety among hon. Members of all parties about that. Changes in legislation that perhaps grant Members of Parliament some element of privilege may be required.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I can promise a debate on the matter. However, I should be happy to hear from any hon. Member who is encountering specific problems that are related to data protection when carrying out their constituency work. I shall pass on the information to the Home Office.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 489.
[That this House notes the call of Amnesty International for a public inquiry into the mass killing of Afghan prisoners at the Qala-i-Jhangi Fort on 25th and 27th November; conscious of the presence of British and American special forces on site during the massacre and the heavy bombardment of the prisoners by the US Air Force, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to support the setting up of such an inquiry; further notes that the Northern Alliance commander of the Fort, General Dostum, is a notorious killer with a long record of war crimes; and reminds Her Majesty's Government and the US Government of the international opprobrium which still surrounds General Ariel Sharon resulting from his 'indirect responsibility' for the massacres in the Sabra and Chatilla camps in Lebanon in 1982, which though committed by others, would not have been possible without his involvement.]
Will my right hon. Friend ask the Government to make a statement on the matter? Will he also ask them to state clearly that the perpetrators of the massacres in Kabul and elsewhere, whichever side they are on, will answer for their war crimes at an international criminal court convened by the United Nations?
Mr. Cook: Although I welcome any further information that my hon. Friend wishes to produce, I am not aware of massacres in Kabul. The relative orderliness of life in Kabul has been a remarkable feature of events since the defeat of the Taliban. The great majority of the population have welcomed the defeat and disappearance of the Taliban.
We do not have full information on events in the fortress at Mazar-i-Sharif. It is plainly desirable to acquire more information, and considerable debate will continue on the matter. International law is clear: prisoners' human interests and needs should be respected. However, it is also robust in providing that those who are combatants need not expect to be treated as prisoners of war. The matter for debate is whether the response was appropriate for prisoners who had armed themselves with kalashnikovs, mortar guns and a tank and, in those circumstances, whether it was right to regard them solely as prisoners.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether there are obstacles to the Northern

1111
Ireland Grand Committee meeting in Northern Ireland? Can I have his assurance that he will look into that matter and help facilitate us having such a meeting in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Cook: Offhand, I am not sufficiently familiar with the Standing Orders to give a categorical assurance to the hon. Gentleman. Personally, I see no problem with the Committee meeting in Northern Ireland. I will be happy to examine the matter and write to him.
Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend was asked by the shadow Leader of the House about next Thursday's debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will be fairly specific because it relates to the common fisheries policy. I think that I heard that there will be a debate on Wednesday on something that is perhaps less specific, described as European affairs. Previously when we have debated European affairs we have been able to hang our speeches on voluminous Commission documents. Are we going to be able to do that this time?
Mr. Cook: As somebody who has introduced many of those debates in the past, I can say with confidence that hon. Members will have all the European documents that any human being could possibly wish for.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Are we going to have a statement from the Government on the farce and scandal of the individual learning accounts? The Secretary of State for Education and Skills told the House:
"People who already hold ILAs have until 7 December—six weeks—to use them".—[Official Report, 6 November 2001: Vol. 374, c. 129.]
Some 1.2 million people received letters from the Government giving them that assurance, but that assurance was broken last week by the Government, without any notice at all and without the House being informed, and more than 1 million ILA holders have now been told that they cannot take up their accounts by 7 December. Is that not scandalous? Why do the Government not come along to the House and admit that it is a farce that deserves to be put under close scrutiny by hon. Members, and what message—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cook: I am slightly at a loss to understand how the Government can have broken a commitment on 7 December when we are still a week away from that date. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has written to all hon. Members for the relevant constituencies, advising them that any registered holder of an ILA will have that registration honoured.
Mr. David Clelland: My right hon. Friend will know that Rolls-Royce today announced further job losses across the United Kingdom, many of which are in the north-east. Our region can ill afford to lose those skilled jobs. He will also be aware that the north-east continues to have the highest unemployment in the UK and too often comes bottom of important social and economic indices. We cannot afford to wait for
1112
regional government to begin tackling those issues, so can we have an early statement from the Government on when and how they are going to tackle regional disparities, which have gone on for too long and are too great?
Mr. Cook: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the impact on his constituents and others of job losses in the present circumstances. I understand why he wants to press for an opportunity to ensure that it is raised in the House, and I will convey his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Robert Key: Would the Leader of the House let us have a debate as soon as possible on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? That would give us the opportunity to debate the age of Greek aircraft and the competence of the Greek Air Force to distinguish between tourists and spies. Does he realise that there is growing anger in Wiltshire that the Greek Government seem to have the resources, time and energy to pursue plane spotters, but do not have the resources, time and energy to pursue the assassination of Britain's defence attaché in Athens only a couple of years ago? Does he also realise that that is a scandal and makes Greece look ridiculous?
Mr. Cook: I remember the assassination of our defence attaché and I visited Athens at the time to express my concern. We continue to assist in any way that we can in tracking down those who were responsible for the assassination, to ensure that they are brought to justice and that the terrorist threat is eliminated.
On those British citizens who have been detained on a charge of espionage, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and the broad concern of the British public. That is why we have raised the matter at a variety of levels—between the Prime Ministers, between the Foreign Secretaries, between the European Ministers and between the Defence Ministers—and why we will continue to press Britain's concerns.
Mr. David Chaytor: Following the welcome statement yesterday on the future management of the financial liabilities of the nuclear Railtrack, given the continuing debate about the future management of radioactive waste—that held by British Nuclear Fuels, the Ministry of Defence and private generators—and given the continuing debate about the role of nuclear generation in the future mix of energy supply, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an overwhelming case for a debate on the future of the nuclear industry? Does he agree also that it is remarkable how little time is given to debating the industry in the House? Had more time been given over many years, perhaps fewer mistakes might have been made. Can he find Government time for a debate on the industry in the near future?
Mr. Cook: I shall happily add that request to the growing list of requests that I have for debates. Of course, there are other ways in which my hon. Friend can seek an opportunity to raise the matters to which he has referred.
We attached importance to ensuring that the House received a full oral statement at the earliest possible opportunity after the BNFL statement, and that took place yesterday. I cannot promise that there will be a further opportunity in the Chamber to debate these matters next week.
Mr. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): The Government's position on their commitments to health

1113
spending is still extremely murky. May we have an early statement to clarify what the Government mean by "European average"? Does that refer to Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, or does it mean the European Union? If we mean the EU, is it the EU as constituted, or is it the EU in 2005 or 2006, which could include the accession of several countries from eastern Europe? If that is the case, are the Government hoping that the average will come down and the EU will meet us halfway? Could we have a specific percentage target?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure to what extent the hon. Gentleman's question has illuminated this issue. I rather suspect that if we took the wide interpretation that he is proposing, we would already have surpassed the average gross domestic product. Therefore, I am happy to put him at rest on this point. When we have referred to the average, we have been referring to the existing members of the European Union.
The hon. Gentleman believes, to use his word, that our commitment on health spending is "murky". I would welcome some clarity on what exactly is the commitment of Conservative Members on health spending, and whether they intend to meet the EU average or the average of the countries of central and eastern Europe.
David Winnick: The international community should keep a close watch on happenings in post-Taliban Afghanistan. That is the view of those of us who fully supported the military operation.
Would it be possible to have a statement next week so that a Minister could announce a public debate on whether health care should be provided, as now, largely through the national health service, or through private insurance, which to a large extent is now Conservative policy? Would not it be useful if the country had such a debate so that we could ascertain whether our view on maintaining the NHS for all is one that is generally approved of? I am sure that it is.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a tempting suggestion for a debate. I shall promote it as a priority on my list of issues awaiting debate. I agree that it is clear from the evidence that has been produced during the week that the way in which we fund the national health service out of general taxation provides the most efficient, fairest and most universal system of health care. We look forward to the Opposition telling us whether they are willing to destroy that.
Mr. Michael Jack: I join those who have called for greater clarity from the Government on the question of health spending. Has the Leader of the House not realised that as Britain increases expenditure on health, so the amount of the European average will increase? If any other member state were also to increase its expenditure on health, the average would effectively translate into a moving target. Will he clarify how we are supposed to hit that target?
Mr. Cook: These questions are descending from the entertaining into the pathetic. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's befuddled arithmetic, the fact is that we have closed the gap over the past four years. We shall continue to do so over the next five years, and we shall succeed in matching the average in 2005–06.
Mr. Jim Cousins: The Chancellor's pre-Budget report includes on page 114 an
1114
important commitment to review the fairness of public expenditure across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. In light of the answer that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), will he at least consider referring that issue and all issues related to my hon. Friend's points about rising employment problems in the north-east to the Committee of the Regions?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has identified a valid forum in which to explore the issue which, I know, is of great importance to him and other Members. It is vital to reflect the regional variety and dimension of the United Kingdom—one of the strengths of our country—in our debates and ensure that our forums reflect that adequately. I am pleased that the Government have given that commitment. From what my hon. Friend said, I take it that he welcomes that commitment, and I am sure that he and others will want opportunities to make sure that the Government deliver it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House and a member of the House of Commons Commission, give the House the opportunity to discuss the facilities for visitors to the House? Does he agree that when constituents come to the House of Commons they should be treated equally and fairly? At present, they are not.
Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree. Indeed, during the time in which I have been Leader of the House, I have reflected on the fact that, as a Parliament, we miss an immense opportunity to convey to the tens of thousands of people who come to Parliament the importance of the Commons as an expression of democracy in the United Kingdom. I welcome the fact that, at present, they have adequate opportunity to see our buildings, study our architecture and consider our history, but we should look at ways in which we can ensure that they also receive a message about the importance of a contemporary Parliament and its role in our democracy. I shall wish to explore that with the Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Derek Foster: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on regional development agencies? That would give a Minister an opportunity to explain that the Government have insisted—rightly, to my mind—that those agencies are business-led. However, neither the chairman nor the vice-chairman of the regional development agency for the north-east of England are from the business sector, and it has just summarily got rid of representatives from the Confederation of British Industry and the chamber of commerce. If my right hon. Friend cannot find time for a debate, will he look into the matter and tell us what is going on?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's invitation but, if he will forgive me, I shall decline to dip my toe into that particularly hot water and leave it to the region itself to resolve the issue. However, on the generality of what he said, I am conscious of a number of regional issues that are a matter of legitimate public debate and interest; I am also conscious of our obligation as a Parliament to ensure that they can be ventilated. I

1115
certainly want to look at our procedures and opportunities to make sure that there are adequate chances for Members to raise issues of concern to their regions.
Pete Wishart: I wonder if the Leader of the House can help me. If a Bill is considered and passed on a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament, but is significantly amended by the House making aspects of it substantially different, should it not go back to the Scottish Parliament for further consideration and approval? If not, why not?
Mr. Cook: The short answer is that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman without notice, but I shall reflect on his point. So far, we have not experienced the difficulty of amendments changing the character of the Bill so much that it would require a fresh Sewel motion. However, I can assure him that we maintain close contact with our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. So far, that contact has worked to the advantage of both the Scottish Parliament and this place, but we shall certainly wish to discuss any such difficulties.
Llew Smith: Can the Leader of the House find time to arrange a debate on the charter of BBC 'Wales and language discrimination? That would enable us to debate the reasons why the vast majority of the people in Wales who do not speak the Welsh language are increasingly excluded from senior positions and why BBC Wales is now sacking people, not just because they do not speak the language but because their accent is not Welsh enough—that was agreed in a recent court ruling. We could also debate the reason why every controller of BBC 'Wales in the past 50 years has been a Welsh speaker and 'why 25 members of a 30-strong political unit are Welsh speakers. The vast majority of people in Wales are now being excluded or discriminated against by BBC Wales.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his point with great force and vigour. I expect that other hon. Members from 'Wales may wish to express a contrary point of view with equal vigour and clarity. I would strongly support the right of anybody to take part in broadcasting or any other activity, irrespective of their accent.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Leader of the House agree to the request from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for an early debate on the ministerial refusal to answer questions? The issue is the reply to my question about emergency legislation to prevent an application for interim review from Railtrack, and an answer that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Since when do internal communications cover draft legislation that is due to come before the House?
Mr. Cook: Any draft legislation is necessarily the subject of internal communication within the Government. That is not particularly new, nor is it an invention of this Government, as opposed to the previous Government. I listened with care to what the Speaker said to the House yesterday. It is important that the House accepts his advice and pursues the matter through the two relevant Select
1116
Committees that he mentioned. I anticipate that in the fullness of time we will have a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on questions.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Rolls-Royce is by far the largest employer in Pendle. It came as a real shock—a body blow—to learn from the company this morning that up to one third of the employees at the two Rolls-Royce plants in Barnoldswick, where I live, are to lose their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) referred to the crisis in aerospace. Is not the situation serious enough for an early statement from the relevant Ministers to the House next week, to see what the Government can do to help the industry, which is in crisis? We all understand that the Government cannot force people back on to aeroplanes, but there are steps that the Government can take and should be taking to help that high-tech leading-edge industry, which needs our help now.
Mr. Cook: I entirely understand why the impact of such a large number of job losses in my hon. Friend's constituency is a matter of deep concern to him and to his constituents. I am glad that he has had the opportunity of drawing the House's attention to that deep concern. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be following the matter closely, and the Government will want to do anything they can to assist, within the reasonable bounds that my hon. Friend outlined. I shall make sure that my hon. Friend hears from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as soon as possible.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I refer the Leader of the House to the ongoing crisis in the countryside as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic. He is a countryman; he has lived in the New Forest, he spent much of the last Parliament at Chevening, and he spends a lot of time at the racecourse. He must understand the dismay. Has not the time come for the Government to arrange a full and comprehensive public inquiry? What is his personal view?
Mr. Cook: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for polishing my rural credentials. I shall plead them in aid next time we have an exchange on rural affairs. The Government have appointed three separate inquiries into the foot and mouth episode. We have constructed them in a way that will enable us to learn the lessons as soon as possible and get on with them. I honestly believe that it is in the interests of the countryside and of all hon. Members that we get those answers and learn those lessons as quickly as possible, and that we do not devise new ways to delay finding out what we need to do next.
Andrew Mackinlay: The Leader of the House will note that the Opposition are to give us an Opposition day debate on the funding of the English national stadium. No doubt we will be expected to engage in the usual yah-boo and synthetic anger between the two Dispatch Boxes, and then the matter will be swept up. The question should have been put to the Prime Minister on Wednesday last week, and would have been if we had an effective Opposition. If I am expected to go through the Division Lobby with the usual ritual, I expect the Minister to tell us what mandates there were to hand over

1117
a large sum of money to a very profitable English soccer industry, where the money is now, when it will come back and how much will come hack. I need to know those things before being expected to acquiesce by my silence to something that looks to me to be highly irregular.
Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that silence is not something that I would ever expect to demand of him. I shall give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who will be speaking in that debate, advanced notice of his concerns. I share his sense of puzzlement about why the Opposition have singled out this subject for debate when they have failed to raise it with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister even though they have had ample opportunity to do so.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to the House to make an early statement clarifying the role and term of office of the de Chastelain commission in Northern Ireland? Given that the remit of that body runs out in February 2002, and in light of the Secretary of State's remarks yesterday, will he assure the House that there will be no further attempt to push back the deadline or to fudge the issue of the complete handover of all IRA weapons? Has it not come to the time when the people of Northern Ireland deserve a situation in which the republican movement gives up all its weapons or is put out of the government of this part of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be answering questions in the House next Wednesday, when the hon. Gentleman and others can raise those issues with him. I shall continue to have close dialogue with him.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May we have a debate on GM contamination? My right hon. Friend will be aware of this morning's news that contaminated maize has turned up in a remote area of Mexico that is separated by some 60 miles and several years from the last recorded GM plantings in California. Given that the UK has paltry separation distances, that UK farmers cannot get insurance against GM contamination and that we have been consistently blocked from having a GM producer liability regime by the industry that wants to pursue the trials, could we have an urgent debate to dispel the public myth and criticism that UK policy is increasingly either in the pay or the pockets of a biotech industry that is currently driven by a bunch of crooks and shysters?
Mr. Cook: I anticipate that there would be considerable difficulty for me, including with you, Mr. Speaker, if I were to assent to my hon. Friend's last proposition. I am aware of his vigorous views and I know that the issue to which he refers polarises opinions sharply. Evidence from Mexico or anywhere else is a matter that the Government will seriously consider as we take forward the debate.
Michael Fabricant: A few short weeks ago, I raised with the Prime Minister at Question Time the case of my constituent, Councillor Tony Lanchester, who was at that time suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, but could not be given the drugs that he needed because the South Staffordshire health authority did not have the money to
1118
prescribe them. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, since then, he has died. He died because his immune system was reduced as he was not getting the drugs that he needed. A problem that all hon. Members face from time to time is that of health authorities hiding behind the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and saying that because NICE is investigating a drug, they cannot prescribe it. That is the not the case. Can we have a debate so that it is made clear to health authorities and all hon. Members that if a drug is available, a consultant who wishes to prescribe it may do so, even if it is being investigated by NICE?
Mr. Cook: May I express to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents the deep sympathy of the whole House about the death of his constituent? When speaking about such issues, it is appropriate for all of us to respond with respect for the family concerned. This is not a matter that would be appropriate for a party political debate.
I shall take on board what the hon. Gentleman said about NICE and refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, I think that the principle of NICE was right. We should have a central body that can consider with medical and scientific expertise the drugs that are coming on to the market and establish whether they represent a clinical advantage and value for money. That is appropriate in an age where it is important to ensure that we get value for money from our new, fresh investment in the health service. That must be the right way forward and I do not want to disturb that principle.
Paddy Tipping: The Leader of the House has already heard concern expressed from the north-east and the north-west about job losses in the aerospace industry. Given that 225 jobs were lost this morning at the Rolls-Royce factory at Hucknall, can we have an early opportunity to debate what short-term steps can be taken to maintain high-skill, high-technology, high-value jobs in a sector that obviously has a long-term future?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important aspect of this matter, which is that we should not lose a skilled, experienced work force through short-term difficulties, when we shall require that team to work and produce for Britain in the long term. I note that several points have been raised this afternoon by hon. Members concerned by the Rolls-Royce statement, and I am sure that Rolls-Royce will also note the deep concern that it will cause in Members' constituencies and in the Chamber.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern at being repeatedly pressed on the question of health spending. However, that is nothing compared with the irritation of the Chancellor when he heard the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. The fact is that we get sharper and clearer answers from the Leader of the House than we could ever expect from the Prime Minister. Will he, therefore, tell us whether the Government's commitment to raising health expenditure refers to overall health expenditure in the EU, or merely to Government health expenditure in the EU? Will he also

1119
tell us whether the Government's commitment refers to total health expenditure in this country or merely to Government health expenditure in this country?
Mr. Cook: I speak without having had an opportunity to examine the footnotes to the statistics but, as I understand it, we are discussing the overall envelope of health spending in both cases. But the great majority of that, whether we are considering the European Union figure or the UK figure, is public spending, and that will drive the increase. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but, I should be grateful if he did not try to dig a deep hole for me with regard to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a proposal floating around for a few years now to the effect that there should be an EU-wide ban on cosmetics that have been tested on animals. I now find that, according to a letter from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, the European Commission has decided that such a ban might offend the sensibilities of the World Trade Organisation. This is disappointing, but hardly surprising as the Commission spends all its time kissing the corporate backside. Nevertheless, could we have a statement or debate on the issue?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a matter into which I would hesitate to enter without having had the opportunity to brief myself, but I note what he says. I share his concern, and the Government are committed to ensuring that we minimise the suffering caused to animals through animal testing, and to ensuring that, whenever possible, we proceed in ways that do not require animal testing. I am sure that my hon. Friends in the relevant Departments will wish to take on board his comments.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the clear commitment of the Government, notwithstanding the passage of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, to continue to have debates on London affairs on the Floor of the House? Following his statements today, it seems unlikely that the Government will find time for such a debate before Christmas. Is that because they are concerned that the Prime Minister's statement on the modernisation of the tube through a public-private partnership as the best way forward would be unsustainable in a debate, or is there some other reason that they are unwilling to reveal?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to reveal that the reason why we are unlikely to have such a debate before Christmas is that there are two and a half weeks before the Christmas recess, and in the course of these proceedings I have heard enough bids for debates to fill up all that time. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that nobody in the Government imagines that this matter will not have further ventilation
1120
in the House and in public. We would expect there to be further discussions, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will wish to express their views in the course of them.
Mr. Martin Salter: Would my right hon. Friend care to take this opportunity to debunk some of the more fanciful reports in the weekend papers that the Modernisation Committee is about to recommend new working hours for the House? Will he confirm that the Modernisation Committee has not yet had the opportunity to discuss working hours or the parliamentary calendar, and that, when it does, there is not the remotest possibility of proposals to impose a nine-to-five culture on this place ever seeing the light of day?
Mr. Cook: I hope that this does not disappoint any hon. Member, but my hon. Friend is correct. Claims that the House could ever meet from 10 am to 5pm are unsourced and unchecked with my Department. They are also total garbage. I am sorry that what was once a serious newspaper should have found it in itself to run that story without bothering to discover whether it has any credibility.
Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House find time before Christmas for a debate to explore the energy options in the light of the performance and innovation unit energy review, which is due soon? That would enable us to ensure that we replace nuclear with nuclear to achieve a safe, secure, environmentally friendly and affordable energy supply for the medium and long-term future of this country.
Mr. Cook: As the hon. Gentleman knows, energy policy is being reviewed and the nuclear component is part of that review. At an appropriate time, the House and its Committees will express a view on the issue.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: And finally, Mr. Speaker, is not the right hon. Gentleman's confidence in the Government meeting their health spending target based on the trick of including UK health spending in the European average? Any fool knows that UK health spending brings the European average down. If it is excluded, there is not a cat in hell's chance of the Government reaching the European average. Does not the very nature of this morning's exchanges confirm that we need at least a statement on the issue, if not a full debate?
Mr. Cook: There is only one way in which to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the House: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills must arrange a seminar in the Grand Committee Room on how to calculate percentages. In the meantime, I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), we have closed the gap over the past four years; we shall continue to close it over the next five. We await with great interest the opinion of Conservative Members on how much wider that gap would be if they ever got into office.

Points of Order
1.27 pm
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Question Time today, you again had the opportunity to slap down a Minister who started to speak about what he thought Opposition policy might be, this time by attempting to quote a manifesto. As that happens time and again, might it be advisable for you to issue either a further statement or free copies of "Erskine May" to all officials in all Departments, so that they do not prepare briefs that lead Ministers out of order?
Mr. Speaker: If it happens again, not only with Ministers, but with Back Benchers, I shall take the appropriate action.
Mr. John Baron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following your helpful statement yesterday relating to the Government's poor record in answering written questions, may I briefly highlight a particularly serious case involving the possibility of toxic ash being dumped in my constituency? I seek your advice.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 6 July, asking certain questions, and followed up with numerous phone calls. I wrote again in October, asking for a substantive answer. I received a holding reply. I tabled a written question at the beginning of November to which, two days later, I again received a holding reply. How can I put further pressure on the Secretary of State to answer, bearing it in mind that my constituents take the issue seriously?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should read my statement carefully, because I gave advice to the House as to how hon. Members should pursue those matters.

Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
1.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords]—

Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
  Timetable
  1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Seven o'clock.

  Questions to be put
  2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

  (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,

  (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

  3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
  4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  Miscellaneous
  6. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting.
  7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement, and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
  9. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
  10. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
  11. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
  12. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over

  1123
  to Four o'clock and proceedings on the Bill have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
  13. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  There are issues of such importance that we need to find time, perhaps at short notice, to ensure that UK law does what we in Parliament and the public whom we represent expect it to do. Human reproductive cloning is one such important issue. It is an issue on which we need to take action, and to do so now.
  I intend to set out the background to the legislation on these matters and to the judicial review that concluded that human embryos created by cell nuclear replacement—so-called cloned embryos—were not governed by the overarching legislation, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
  This is a matter of great importance, and it is not just theoretical. We are already aware of reports of an Italian who wanted to come to the United Kingdom to exploit what he considered to be a loophole in our law. Others may be tempted to do the same if the situation remains unchanged.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: In January, did not senior lawyers in the other place—Lord Rawlinson, speaking for the Conservatives, and Lord Brennan, who is of a different political persuasion—warn that the interpretation that has now been accepted by the courts was likely? Is it not wrong that, in the 10 months since those clear warnings, the Government have done nothing to present the change to the House and correct a risky and worrying situation?
  Ms Blears: I shall deal with the legal position later. The Government took advice from senior counsel on the interpretation of the 1990 Act, and on whether it covered all kinds of embryos, including those created by cell nuclear replacement. We were advised that the Act was likely to involve a purposive construction, and that therefore all embryos were covered. Mr. Justice Crane held otherwise in the High Court, which is why we need to introduce the Bill today and why we need the allocation of time motion.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister is not merely allocating time, but trying to take all the Bill's stages in one day. What is the basis for her belief that in the time that it would take to handle the Bill properly, with intervals between its stages and consultation outside, this Italian—or anyone else—would manage to break what we thought the law was before the court decision? Surely it is unrealistic in the extreme to imagine that anyone could engage in that process during the time that it would take to scrutinise the Bill properly, rather than rushing it through.
  Ms Blears: It is difficult for me to speculate on what might happen, but we know that this individual has been threatening to use such a process for a long time. If he perceived a legal loophole here in the United Kingdom,
  1124
  he might seek to exploit it. We must bear in mind the advances made in America last week when considering whether the Bill should complete all its stages today.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: That does not answer the question. If the Government made a firm declaration of intent, and if it were known—as it would be known—that their passing of a sensible measure would be widely supported in the House, the Italian and anyone else would be deterred. There is no excuse for rushing the Bill through today, especially as many of us consider it very defective.
  Ms Blears: I think that it is a sensible measure, and I think it difficult for any of us to say that a message sent from the House will deter individuals from taking action. We have no way of knowing that. The only way to ensure that they are deterred is to pass the Bill today, and enshrine it in our law.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: If the real danger is represented by the activities of this Italian, the Home Secretary has adequate powers—I have counsel's opinion to this effect—to exclude him under the Immigration Acts. That would give us time to devise some sensible legislation.
  Ms Blears: The appropriate course is to look at our legislation, impose the ban on human reproductive cloning that we promised as long ago as August 2000, and ensure that the Bill constitutes a clear legal statement of our position. Powers may well exist under other legislation, but they do not relate to banning human reproductive cloning; they relate to one individual. This is a much more sensible way to proceed.
  Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady will know that I generally support the Bill, but because up to three hours may be spent debating the allocation of time motion we may have only two and a half hours to debate its remaining stages. Although I wish the Bill to be passed, does she not accept that those arrangements are an outrage?
  Ms Blears: The solution lies in hon. Members' hands: we can debate the motion as quickly as possible and thereby maximise the time available to debate these very important issues. On Monday, the other place passed the Bill unamended in about five hours. I hope that we can achieve something similar in this place.
  Mr. Heald: Did the hon. Lady read the debate in the other place and note the cacophony from Lords on both sides of the House? Time and again they pointed out how rushing the Bill through was a contempt of Parliament.
  Ms Blears: I read the debate at length. Many Members of the other place supported the Bill and wanted it to be enacted to ensure that the position is made clear.
  Lynne Jones: I support the Bill. The problem is that the Government's proposals cover actions that are not imminent, whereas they exclude imminent associated actions such as the use of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement techniques.
  Ms Blears: The Bill is narrowly drawn, tightly focused and designed to concentrate on human reproductive

  1125
  cloning, about which there is broad consent in both Houses of Parliament and among the public. I do not think that a practice's imminent nature, although a consideration, is the sole issue.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that immediate public reassurance on the point that she has just made is important, given the scare tactics that we have seen in the media and elsewhere? We need a decision right now, particularly on reproductive cloning.
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right. Any hon. Member who has read the press reports in the past week or so will have been appalled by some of the scaremongering. It is vital that we give the public reassurance now.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister's answer to the previous question confirms what many of us feel: that the Government's legislative programme is driven more by their fear of press reports than by rational argument. If the Leader of the House was right in saying at last week's business questions that the Government's intent is to restore the status quo ante on embryo protection that preceded the judgment, why does the Bill provide only one form of protection for cloned embryos, which I support, but not for others?
  Ms Blears: Like any proper Government, we are rightly responsive to public opinion. The proposals were announced in August 2000, when we said that we would enshrine in statute a ban on human reproductive cloning. We intend to do that.
  As for the therapeutic uses of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement, we are appealing Mr. Justice Crane's judgment; I understand that it will be lodged this afternoon. We want to await the outcome of that legal process before determining what action we must take to ensure that embryos so created have the same protection as the 1990 Act offers embryos created by fertilisation.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister correctly reminds us that the Government promised us this legislation in August 2000. Meanwhile, have not hon. Members on both sides of the House been urging the Government to introduce it much more quickly? I raised the issue in business questions four months ago but was told that a Bill would appear in good time. Have not the Government been caught out by a court case? Has not the Government's poor legal judgment forced us into this position? Why cannot we have enough time to consider the Bill and its implications such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)? Although I support the Bill, it is very flawed.
  Ms Blears: As I have explained, it is important that we act urgently. We intend to deal with the other matters when the outcome of the appeal is known. It is not a matter of rushing legislation that we promised to introduce or of our being caught out by the judgment. Counsel's advice, on which we acted, was that all embryos were covered by the 1990 Act. After proper
  1126
  litigation, the courts took a narrow, literal interpretation of the statute, as a result of which cell nuclear replacement embryos are not covered. We need to take immediate action in respect of human reproductive cloning, and to consider what we need to do on therapeutic cloning when we have the results of the appeal.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The Minister has been generous with her time, and I am grateful to her for giving way. The issue underlines the problem with rapid scientific advances. She is right that the judge took a literal interpretation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 rather than taking account of the way in which cells are created. The House must consider whether this narrow Bill will give the protection against human reproductive cloning that all of us would like to see. We can revert to the importance of trying to protect and encourage therapeutic cloning.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We are not at this point discussing the contents of the Bill, but simply the allocation of time motion.
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises some of the matters that I will address later in the debate. He makes an important point: in this fast-moving scientific world, we need to ensure that our legislation canencapsulate that dynamic process as well as capturing the law at a particular moment in time.
  As hon. Members will know, our concerns—reflected in this short Bill—were proved right when, at the weekend, we saw the outcome of research in the US, where researchers successfully created embryos by cell nuclear replacement as well as by parthenogenesis, which involves stimulating an egg to develop into an embryo without the use of sperm. The Government are lodging an appeal against the court decision this afternoon, but on an issue such as this, which has such considerable safety and ethical dimensions, immediate action is required, even though there is already considerable pressure on the parliamentary timetable. That is why the Bill, announced last year, has been introduced now.
  The Bill was debated in the other place on Monday and approved without amendment. It is a short Bill and its aim is clear. No one, as far as I am aware, has said that reproductive cloning should take place. I know that some people believe that the Bill should be wider, to include therapeutic cloning, but those issues are properly left for the outcome of the Government's appeal. The Government's immediate concern is that no one should think that they can come to the UK to exploit the current situation.
  The Government recognise the concerns of those who seek a wider debate, but we make no apology for the fact that the Bill has been introduced quickly after the judgment on 15 November, which raised doubts about the lawfulness of the ban imposed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The introduction of the Bill reflects the concerns raised frequently by Parliament and the public about the importance of ensuring that reproductive cloning cannot take place in the UK.
  In August 2000 we said that we would introduce a Bill to place the ban on human reproductive cloning on a statutory footing. I hope that we can achieve that aim this afternoon.
  1.43 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: In opposing the programme motion, I start by referring to the exceptional speech made in the other place by the Bishop of St. Albans. I do not know whether we describe bishops as right reverend prelates, as they do in the other place; if so, I adopt that practice. He spoke of the importance of the issue and said that on certain issues a human being instinctively feels a shudder of recognition. He talked about moments of great art inspiring shudders of recognition and said:
  "we have become so seduced by our technological skills that the moral enormity of what we are doing and the sheer scale of our audacity have dwarfed and threaten to silence conscience, wisdom and that collective sensibility which alone ensure genuine moral freedom. I believe, however, that in this debate and in our nation there is a 'shudder of recognition' that human reproductive cloning is inherently and absolutely wrong and must be prevented at all costs."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 35.]
  This is one of the great issues of our day and I am sure that the vast majority of the public and this House would agree with the bishop's views, as I do.
  There was also concern in the other place that, however urgent the matter might be, Parliament was not being given adequate time to consider it properly and that, as a consequence, the resulting law might not be effective. The same is true of the time being allowed in this place.
  A balance must always be struck between urgency and proper consideration, and between the Government's duty to act and the rights of Opposition parties—even when, as in this instance, the main Opposition simply believe that the Bill does not go far enough. A balance must also be struck between speed and effectiveness. All hon. Members will know of examples of when the House has legislated in haste and repented at leisure.
  The concerns expressed in the other place were felt not only by those such as Lord Alton, whose view is that all cloning should be banned, but by those who support so-called therapeutic cloning. Baroness Walmsely said:
  "we are debating today the protection of probably the most vulnerable form of human life. Yet we have been given only today to do it and to ensure that the legislation passes through all its parliamentary stages."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 17.]
  Michael Fabricant: I have been listening to my hon. Friend, and doing some calculations at the same time. Is he aware that, if the Second Reading debate lasts for 90 minutes, the Report stage for 15 minutes and Third Reading for 30 minutes, and if this debate lasts the full the three hours deemed appropriate by the Leader of the House, there will be only three and three quarter minutes in Committee to discuss each amendment selected by Mr. Speaker? Does my hon. Friend think that that is a reasonable amount of time?
  Mr. Heald: As so often, my hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not merely a question of the amount of time devoted to each amendment. Parliamentary procedure is designed to allow proper reflection between the various stages of a Bill's progress through the House. We have First Reading, when we read the Bill. We have Second Reading, when the principles underlying the Bill are examined. We then have a period of reflection, during which we can decide what amendments are needed to
  1128
  cover the ambit of debate set out on Second Reading. Not every hon. Member gets a chance to take part in debate during the Committee stage, because of the arrangements involving Committees upstairs. A gap is therefore left after the Committee stage so that all hon. Members can study a Bill and decide how it should be amended on Report. Finally, we look at the whole thing again on Third Reading, and decide whether we like it. Without those gaps, people outside do not have the opportunity to contribute.
  The eyes of the world are on us today. This is an international issue. It prompted the American Congress to approve on Monday a motion, with a majority of more than 100. that bans all forms of cloning. The European countries have covered the issue in the relevant convention.
  This Parliament is the cradle of democracy. Hon. Members are admired across the world for the proper scrutiny that we give, or should give—
  Tim Loughton: Used to give.
  Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that the House used to give proposals proper scrutiny. It does us no credit to deny democracy in a process such as we are about to embark on today.
  I accept that reproductive cloning should be banned, and that this is an urgent matter. I support the Bill, but one of the pieces of evidence presented to Congress on Monday was that more than 200 couples are interested in trying experiments of the sort covered by the Bill as a way to have a baby. Those people are prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to take part in such experiments. It is therefore urgent that the Bill should become law. I believe that it should take only days or a week to get it on to the statute book, but there is no excuse for doing so in one afternoon, as is proposed. It is crucial that we have gaps between the various stages.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: We need time to debate this issue in the broader context of how we treat cell nuclear replacements and how we isolate the aspects of cell creation that we wish to ban—human reproduction. We do not want to make the mistake of the US Congress, which is to ban everything. In my judgment, it is humane to pursue therapeutic cloning through cell nuclear replacement.
  Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend illustrates one of the most important points about measures such as this: there are very different, serious, deeply held views on the exact way forward. I hope that when the Lords Stem Cell Research Committee finishes its report on this issue we shall have an opportunity to look in detail at all the law in this area and at all the various complicated, difficult issues that arise. Even since January, when we debated therapeutic cloning, more evidence has emerged about what can be done with adult stem cells. Clearly, that should inform our debate and we should look at the issues. I hope that the Government will treat this as the emergency plugging of a loophole and that we shall return to the subject and have a proper debate in due course, if it does not prove possible to do so now.
  Mr. Beith: If the Government succeed in pressing ahead today, they must return with a further legislative

  1129
  opportunity. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his concept of urgency? It strains credulity to suggest that someone could arrive in this country, find a clinic prepared to lose its licence by co-operating, find participants and embark on this procedure in the few weeks that it would take us to consider this Bill properly. Does he agree that the Government are straining the concept of emergency beyond any reasonable limit by saying that we have to legislate in a period shorter than would be needed to give the Bill reasonable consideration?
  Mr. Heald: I agree that a period of three and a half hours with no gaps between the stages is ludicrous. The Bill is tightly drawn and probably goes beyond what is sensible in tightening the cordon.
  Lord Brennan, who supports the Bill and therapeutic cloning, wanted to raise some basic legal issues about definition and so on, but even narrow definitional issues proved beyond the draftsmanship of someone who has been Chairman of the Bar Council and is widely respected across both Houses.
  There is an issue about whether the drafting of the Bill is helping democracy. I would strongly support a straightforward Bill and a relatively quick timetable, but it is a mistake to draw the Bill so tightly that we cannot even consider, for example, issues such as those raised in the other place by Lady Blatch and others. The timetable, too, is wrong.
  That is sad, as there is no reason for us to be in this position. The Government knew of the legal doubts as long ago as last January. I cannot help thinking that they offered a Bill in their manifesto because they thought that it was necessary to ban this form of cloning in primary legislation. Otherwise, why have a Bill? As recently as the general election the Government were promising to introduce a Bill of this sort, but they did not. In January, 11 months ago, they were told that there was a legal risk. At the general election, just a few months ago, they admitted that there was a need to change the law. The Government took a risk. They hoped that the matter would not end up in court and that they would get away with it. Now, because of their mistake, democracy is being asked to pay the price in over-hasty legislation.
  We oppose the motion because, first, it fails to recognise the importance of the issue; secondly, it fails to recognise the desire of many hon. Members to consider amendments to the Bill, not only in Committee but on Report; and, thirdly, it fails to recognise the advantages of allowing people outside this place, who have a legitimate interest in the issue, to lobby us and to help us to inform our debates.
  It is right to legislate, but it is wrong to do so without proper scrutiny.
  1.55 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to develop the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).
  We must all face the fact that Parliament has a bad reputation for legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. In successive Governments, Home Office Ministers especially have bamboozled the House into thinking that speed is more important than security of outcome. Each time we are told that it is an emergency.
  1130
  We all remember the Dangerous Dogs Bill, which proved misdirected. We should also remember the dangerous yobs Bill, dealing with football hooligans, which similarly was found to be largely inoperable. In the past few weeks, we have been considering the dangerous terrorists Bill, and even the Minister must accept that both Houses share wide misgivings about the speed with which that ragbag is being pushed through.
  It appears that we are now considering a dangerous professors Bill. The measure is undoubtedly media-driven, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) pointed out. There is no great public outcry for us to pass legislation this week. The pressure for emergency provisions comes entirely from the tabloid press. The House does itself and the country a disservice by allowing ourselves to be panicked into taking such measures.
  We have four concerns about the Bill. The first is legal. As the Minister said, it was only on 15 November that Mr. Justice Crane gave his judgment in the High Court. She pointed out that an appeal is being mounted against only one aspect of that judgment and that we are dealing with a different aspect, but the interrelationship of those aspects involves complicated law. As she said, if the appeal to be lodged this afternoon is unsuccessful, she will be back here again; she will want more parliamentary time and no doubt we will be told that there is another emergency measure that must have all its stages rushed through in an afternoon.
  That is the legal issue. We are already treading in dangerous territory—perhaps sub judice—because of the interrelationship of those aspects. The judge—for once—kept to the letter of the law. What a surprise. Good heavens, is not that what judges often do? Were the Government surprised that for once a judge actually read what had been passed in Parliament and decided that he should go by the letter of the law? What an amazing revelation. Were the Government not prepared for that? If they did not expect that, will they be prepared for the likely outcome of the appeal? Perhaps another judge will also say, "Good heavens, Parliament seems to have introduced some legislation, so I had better take notice of it."
  In a few weeks, we shall have to come back to this issue and another Minister—or even the hon. Lady, if she has not been sacked in the meantime—will be saying, "Oh dear, oh dear, there is another emergency."
  Dr. Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us which group brought the case in the High Court?
  Mr. Tyler: I think that it was the ProLife Alliance, but I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that I hold no particular brief for that group. That is not the point. The point is that a judge in the High Court of this land decided to rely on the words that we in Parliament had agreed. Amazing.
  Our second concern relates to the medical and scientific—
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I am about to refer to him in flattering terms. When we reach the appropriate point, he will deal in detail

  1131
  with the medical and scientific aspects, but I am sure that all hon. Members will acknowledge—as a layman, I certainly do—that they are complicated and difficult for ordinary people to understand. That is an important point.
  Three pages of closely argued explanation—or excuse—from the Minister still do not explain why the Department made its mistake last January and gave us those assurances. There is no apology and no explanation. In a few minutes, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to deal with the Bill's substantial omissions and loopholes. The Minister has, in effect, acknowledged that it is full of holes and thus defective. The issue has been debated at greater length in the European Parliament and the United States Congress, and they have still not got it right.
  Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will know that the US Congress has the same procedures as us. After all, the US Congress is a mirror image of Parliament.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: It is not.
  Michael Fabricant: I believe that it is. However, the issue is whether the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is aware that the US Congress resisted the temptation to which the House may unfortunately succumb. It has separated the various stages—Second Reading, consideration in Committee and on Report and Third Reading—but we may make the mistake of taking those stages in just two and a half hours today.
  Mr. Tyler: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman in his comparison of the United Kingdom and the US constitutions because, as other hon. Members will agree, we have a very different constitution. But he is right that we will run into the most appalling problems in taking together all the stages of a Bill, however straightforward it may appear at first sight.
  Dr. Evan Harris: When my hon. Friend asked the Government to explain why they lost the judicial review, he was challenged for having in some way sided with the ProLife Alliance. Many people advised the Government that their definition would not hold up—for example, Margot Brazier. In his book, Professor Derek Morgan questioned whether it would hold—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those matters are not directly related to the allocation of time motion.
  Mr. Tyler: I therefore express my qualified admiration and gratitude to my hon. Friend, but I have no doubt that he will return to that point if he catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Thirdly, having dealt with the legal and scientific concerns about the way in which the issue is being handled, I turn to the ethical. Whatever our view, we must acknowledge that people have sincere moral and ethical misgivings about these issues; they need the most careful thought. These are highly contentious issues, so all hon. Members, whichever side we take, should give them the attention that they deserve. Indeed, some of us may not have reached a conclusion because these are genuine
  1132
  issues of conscience, and certainly not issues of party policy. We may not have had the opportunity of listening to our leaders and the great and good, who may be able to increase our wisdom on the issues, so, again, we have a particular responsibility to give them the attention that they deserve.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, by taking all stages in an afternoon, we deny not only ourselves but people outside the House the opportunity for careful thought. That is a critical issue for the House. It may not be such an issue for the other House, but as a representative, democratically elected House, we have a responsibility to listen to all sides of the argument and to those outside, especially our constituents.
  Earlier this afternoon, the Leader of the House told us that the House will rise for the Christmas recess on the Wednesday before Christmas. Most of us had already noted in our diaries that we would be here on the Thursday. I suggest to the Government, even at this stage, that a little shunting backwards would provide us with an opportunity to return to this issue at an appropriate point in the consideration of the Bill. That would enable us to listen not only to what other hon. Members say, but to people outside the House. I cannot commit every Liberal Democrat Member to this, but I suspect that as all my hon. Friends have marked Thursday in their diaries as a sitting day, they would feel the House fully justified in taking one more day to give this important Bill further consideration.
  I do not demur from what the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the Minister said about the Bill's importance. It is incredibly important that we consider it properly precisely because it is so important.
  I must put on record once again the fact that there has been no consultation with my party or, so far as I am aware, with those on the Conservative Front Bench on the handling of the Bill. Frankly, that is a disgrace, and that lack of consultation is not good for business in the House.
  On many occasions, the Leader of the House has said that good government requires good parliamentary scrutiny. We are letting ourselves and him down and, most important, we are letting the electorate down by giving the Bill this perfunctory performance of scrutiny this afternoon. Knee-jerk reactions have a nasty habit of hitting the wrong place. If the Bill is as misdirected as I fear that it might be, it could he very painful indeed.
  2.5 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: As you reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are debating not the merits of the Bill, but the merits of considering it in this manner. Frankly, there is no merit whatever in taking it in the manner in which the Government propose.
  There is no situation in the world that is not made worse by panic. This is panic legislation that has been introduced by a Government who, as long ago as August 2000, realised that it would be necessary to produce a Bill. They have waited until the very last minute and sprung the Bill on Parliament in a way that is contemptuous of Parliament, insulting to our constituents and that treats an issue of enormous moral significance as if it were a mere bagatelle. However one looks at it, it is a monumental gaffe by the Government for which there is absolutely no excuse.

  1133
  Yesterday, we debated a measure that did not keep the House occupied until 10 o'clock. There is no reason on God's earth why we should not have begun the consideration of this Bill yesterday. We would then at least have had 24 hours between one stage and another. That would have been far better than what confronts us now, but there is no excuse for even that sort of precipitate rush.
  There cannot be a Member in the House who does not have constituents who are profoundly concerned by the moral implications of the subject. I shall say nothing about that, because I would rightly be called to order if I did. However, in this context, I am a follower of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster who wrote an article last week that outlined some of the complexities of the subject. I well recognise that others take a different view. I honour them for it, and they have every right to take it, but whatever view we take, what opportunity did any of us have to discuss the matter in our constituencies between the announcement that the Bill would be introduced and today's debate? We had no proper opportunity to arrange meetings.
  We should have had Second Reading today—that would have been perfectly in order and entirely reasonable—and then had the weekend to talk to our constituents. It is not just the Churches that are interested in the subject. Doctors and many others would have wanted the opportunity—I would have liked to have given them it—to talk about the Bill.
  Andy King: I am trying to find the right form of words, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is unintentionally misleading us by suggesting that the Bill has been thought up in the past few days. As Baroness Warnock said in the other place, the Bill should be welcomed because the Government and Parliament are fulfilling a commitment on this very important subject. I have received many letters about it, and I believe that my constituents are happy that we are beginning the process, but think that perhaps we should go further.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am almost sorry that I gave way. The hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. Let me say it again. Yes, the Government recognised the need for the Bill as long ago as August 2000, but why in the name of goodness do they have to give us one afternoon to get it through all its stages? It is absurd and an insult, as much to him and his constituents as to me and mine, and to all hon. Members who are present and theirs.
  Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I would rather not on this occasion, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I do not want to detain the House. I believe that it is important to debate the merits of the Bill.
  Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Minister to get herself a parliamentary reputation. She would be honoured in all parts of the House if she sent her Parliamentary Private Secretary to ring the Leader of the House. He has announced a programme of business for the next two weeks that would easily allow more debate on the Bill. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the Wednesday of the week before Christmas. The programme could allow another day—or even another half-day—to provide a gap between Second Reading and further consideration.
  1134
  I welcome the fact that the Government want the Committee stage to take place on the Floor of the House. The subject is so important that that is right and proper. However, there is no reason to rush through it this afternoon. Parliament is being treated with a cavalier disdain that would never have occurred to Charles I. That is monstrous, an exercise in arrogant parliamentary tyranny that even the Government have not previously undertaken. We hear nonsense, and lip service is paid to the House, scrutiny and accountability. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh but we are here to scrutinise and be accountable. We are told to rush through a measure on an issue of monumental moral significance in a few hours. That is an act of unspeakable arrogance and I hope that hon. Members will show their opinion of it in the Lobby.
  2.12 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I oppose the way in which the Bill has been introduced. I support its aim to outlaw cloning, but many matters flow from it that some of us would like to discuss on the Floor of the House. I say to those who have spoken about the United States of America that such a measure is not law there. It has not been to the Senate and will not be considered there until late spring. Such legislation has therefore not been rushed through in the United States.
  I ask the Minister to help me as a Member of the European Parliament. I welcome the fact that, under the subsidiarity principle, national Governments decide whether research into cloning should be allowed. I am glad that the power is in the hands of the national Government. However, I do not understand why the European Union is getting involved in the matter. This week, we had a report from the Brussels Parliament, from which I have just travelled. What is the difference between the Government's policy and that outlined by Europe? It is important to understand the Government's plans and the difference between them and the European Union plans.
  Many matters that need to be examined cannot be considered today. The spill-over from the measure raises many issues that worry people, whatever their religious, moral, theological or political views. All hon. Members who receive letters from constituents know that the subject is topical. Our constituents are talking about it, largely because they have heard an announcement that someone might enter the country and use the territory of the United Kingdom for something that the vast majority of citizens believe should not be done.
  I deeply regret that the Government have not given us more time. We have no chance of dealing with amendments properly. We can do that only if we have time to consider them. The Bill will not have a Report stage and no amendments will be accepted. It will have to go through as it is. Like the law of the Medes and Persians, it cannot be altered. That is not good government, and it does not tend to produce good legislation.
  The Bill will affect many people. The Government must tell us the difference, if one exists, between their policy and that of the European Union.
  2.16 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Bill is a disgrace. It has been produced under the guise of one panic to cover up another. The Government are seriously asking the House to believe that they are in a terrible panic because an Italian is on his way and might do something nasty when he gets here. Indeed, we are being asked to believe that he might do it so quickly that even if we took a couple more days to debate the measure, he could do it in that time. That is not rational, and the Government do not mean it.
  The Government are not genuinely afraid that, as we race against the clock to debate the Bill in the next five hours, a scientist will carry out a specific procedure unless we have decided by 7 pm that he cannot. That is ludicrous. Why are they saying that? They do not expect us to believe it; the Minister is too intelligent for that. They have produced a Bill and demanded that we take it through all its stages in five hours because they are terrified that we might try to amend it. They are especially afraid that some of us who have well known moral objections might try to amend it for purposes other than cloning. That is the source of the panic.
  The problem with that approach is that the Government have produced a Bill that will not even provide the protection that they believe it will give. That is why we need more time to discuss it. I shall list some issues, which I would not dream of debating because you would quickly call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that need discussion.
  The Bill does not prevent the creation of human clones for export, only for implantation. The Italian could come here, create the clone and take it away. There is nothing to stop implantation in animals, and early in vitro fertilisation experiments were conducted in that way. Nothing prevents the use of artificial wombs, which are being used in animals in Japan, or the storing of cloned embryos.
  We need time to debate policing the measure. The Bill provides for an offence not of creating a cloned embryo, but of implanting one. Once the embryo has been implanted, how on earth will we know whether it has been cloned? How will we know whether a pregnancy is natural, or caused through IVF or cloning? I am fascinated. I long for the Minister to tell us. We would love to know how the Bill will be policed.
  When The Independent carried out a survey of all leading IVF consultants, the majority said that they believed that live-birth cloning was inevitable once the creation of cloned embryos was allowed. I find that frightening; the Minister is laughing, so I presume that she does not. The Bill does not prevent the creation of cloned embryos. It will not address, and we will not have time to discuss—I saw you getting restless, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the issues of proper control.
  Last year, a clinic that only a week earlier had passed an inspection by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority implanted 80-odd women with the wrong embryos. How will we police the accidental implantation of cloned embryos? We have no clue how the Government will stop that happening, and they do not have the time to tell us.
  The Bill does not even define "embryo". We were told—arrogantly—in 1990 by a Government whom I supported that it was not necessary to define that term,
  1136
  and that is why we are in this mess. The Bill is supposed to clear up the mess, but it is perpetuated because a definition is not available.
  Lynne Jones: It is not correct that there is no definition; it is just that it does not cover embryos that are created other than by fertilisation. Definitions are available.
  Miss Widdecombe: I was going to take care of that later. The point is well made. There is no definition of when an embryo, as opposed to a pre-embryo, begins and a foetus, as opposed to embryo, starts. We made it clear in 1990 that unless we sorted that out, we would have problems. As a result of not having proper definitions, the ProLife Alliance—I am proud that it was that organisation—obtained a victory in the High Court.
  Concern has even been expressed by Professor Winston of all people, who is no friend to my side of the argument.
  Mr. David Amess: Hear, hear.
  Miss Widdecombe: It is undeniable.
  Professor Winston says that fertilisation is impossible to define and that parthenogenesis, which is the cloning procedure undertaken by Mike West of Advanced Cell Technology, could be classified as fertilisation. Professor Robert Edwards fears that the Bill, because of the way in which it is drafted, could prevent some things that are already legally allowed. Government lawyers agree that the current 14-day limit and the consent provisions will not apply to cloned embryos.
  That is a partial list. I could have cited at least another 30 things that it does not do. If we had only five minutes on each of those, we would run out of time. We would even run out of time if we had only five minutes on all the things that I managed to list. It is a disgrace that the Bill is being rushed through. Nothing is going to happen in the next few days to prevent us from debating the subject for longer and more properly, and the Minister cannot point to anything that will happen in the next few days.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) rightly said that there is a whole spare day in the system. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) explained that the House packed up early yesterday when there were several hours that we could have used. There have been, and there are, many opportunities to put the measure through quickly.
  The situation is ludicrous. It is arrogant of the Government to bring something as profound and serious as this Bill to the House and say, "You clear it up: all stages", without giving us time to reflect on its final shape, to table amendments on Report and to reflect on those before Third Reading. It is arrogant to push it through in this way. I am not surprised, but I am disappointed and saddened. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that the Government's action is tyrannical. A few days would not have made any difference. Even at this late stage, will the Government reconsider their position?
  2.24 pm
  Mr. Paul Marsden: I was not going to speak on the motion, but having listened to the magnificent defence of Parliament by the hon.

  1137
  Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I want to echo his words, however humbly. This is yet another example of us rushing through a Bill in which there is great interest in the country. Many of my constituents who have contacted me over the past week want to see me at my usual surgery on Friday, where they will be able to hear me justify my standpoint, which is to support the Opposition's amendment. Unfortunately, they cannot influence my decision because it will be after the event.
  There is no excuse for rushing the Bill through. I worry again about the future of parliamentary democracy when Ministers choose to take such a tack. I wish that they would reflect a little more on the need to give proper time for the due process of parliamentary procedures.
  2.25 pm
  Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) makes a powerful point. Several issues have been raised by hon. Members from both the main Opposition parties. One issue that has not been taken up is the need to consult the experts, because this is such a technical Bill, as well as our constituents.
  I am sure that I am not alone in receiving representations. I received a good letter from the Minister and briefings from the Association of Medical Research Charities, the public policy department of Christian Action Research and Education, the Parkinson's Disease Society and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Previously, I received briefing material from the diabetics organisations.
  We are dealing with highly technical issues. The whole point of having different stages to consider a Bill is to enable people to give us advice. I sometimes think that the advice of people from outside who lobby us is not useful, and I wonder about the motivation for lobbying. However, for a technical Bill of this nature, I think that we would all welcome lobbying from those who know about the subject.
  For example, there is an argument whether we need to perform such cloning in the first place. I happen to believe that we do, but many other hon. Members on both sides of the House would argue that adult stem cells can do the job. I doubt that, but I do not know. None of us does, but the experts could advise us. Surely it makes sense to hear the arguments on Second Reading today and then receive representations from people who know about the subject, so that we can take the Bill to the next stage.
  I calculated earlier that possibly three and three quarter minutes might be available for each amendment, but I made a mistake. The Chairman of Ways and Means has chosen the amendments that he believes are in order and merit debate. Is there not the possibility that hon. Members might want to divide on them? A Division could take 15 or 20 minutes, so there would be virtually no time available for Report or Third Reading. That makes a mockery of the parliamentary process.
  I am pleased that this issue will be subject to a one-line Whip, at least in the official Opposition. I assume that there is no whipping of Labour Members. As with all
  1138
  issues that require a one-line Whip or that are debated on the Floor in a Committee of the whole House, they require consideration and technical advice.
  Mr. Paul Marsden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that Labour Members were paged just a few minutes ago to remind us that we are running a three-line Whip.
  Michael Fabricant: I am genuinely surprised by that intervention. Generally, on conscience issues, there is an understanding on both sides of the House that there will be a one-line Whip—[Interruption.] I am receiving confirmation from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, that it is a one-line Whip with his party, too. That is a free vote. However, there is not a free vote for Labour Members. That is disgraceful and shocking. I say that as someone who wishes the general principle of the Bill to receive a fair wind. I want the Bill to be enacted, albeit that it may need amendment.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Perhaps the pager of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) has gone wrong. It is the obligation of Members to turn up to vote on important issues. However, their right to vote and which way they vote is a free vote. That is precisely what the Government are asking Back-Bench Members to do.
  Michael Fabricant: I do not want to take this argument too far, or I would be out of order. We are all aware of the convention on whipping. A free vote is a one-line Whip. A vote that is not a free vote is a three-line Whip. The hon. Gentleman did not deny that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was put under a three-line Whip.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting away from the question of allocation of time. Perhaps he will return to that topic.
  Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  As small as it is, the Bill is an important measure. Only slightly fewer than 1 million people suffer from diabetes, for example. On Sunday, I was going round Bletchley Park looking at station X with a friend. He had twice to inject himself with insulin. If he does not get the balance right, he could go blind or lose a limb. Research that could stem from the Bill could possibly find a cure for diabetes and for Parkinson's disease. The Bill will—
  Miss Anne Begg: The hon. Gentleman might be in danger of misleading the House. The Bill will not prevent therapeutic cloning; it is designed to prevent reproductive cloning. He must keep the two issues separate.
  Michael Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman firmly that we are not now discussing the contents of the Bill.
  Michael Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to respond to the hon. Lady's intervention. She is right, and I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I support the Bill because I support therapeutic cloning.

  1139
  I have illustrated that the Bill is complex. It is complex in law, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said. It is also complex in terms of biomedicine. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will argue the points for and against the Bill on Second Reading. We shall then need time to contemplate the issues that have been raised and presented. We shall then have to take advice from experts.
  There is conflicting advice. I talked earlier about whether we need therapeutic cloning. I happen to believe that we do, but we must take advice from experts.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is listening to the advice that I am giving him. We are not now discussing the contents of the Bill.
  Michael Fabricant: I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about the programme motion. I am making the important point that we need extra time because of the nature of the Bill. It is a technical measure and we need gaps between the stages of consideration.
  The Government are being arrogant in the extreme by trying to compress all stages of consideration into only three hours. The time for consideration may be shorter because there may be four or five Divisions before we reach 7 o'clock, when the debate must stop.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that there is an extra day available. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that the issue has been known about since August 2000, more than a year ago. There have been adequate occasions since then to find time fully to debate the important Bill that is before us. The Bill is a panicked measure from a panicked Government. I fear that by not allowing proper time to debate it fully, we shall end up yet again with legislation that is imperfect.
  2.35 pm
  Lynne Jones: As a supporter of therapeutic cloning, I understand the necessity to bring forward the Bill. As a supporter of the Bill, I am rather surprised to find myself supporting much of what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said. Similarly, I am surprised to find myself supporting the comments made in a letter from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which wrote to all Members. Part of the letter states:
  "There is no imminent threat of cloned embryos being created nor of resultant cloned babies being born."
  Surely, the society is right.
  The Bill is fairly urgent, but it is not an emergency measure. It is more urgent that we consider the aspects of cloning that are not covered by the Bill. Much more imminent is the likelihood that people will seek to create cloned embryos, or embryos produced by other means that are not covered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, for experimental purposes prior to implantation. As the right hon. Lady says, what happens after that is difficult to regulate.
  The Government thought that they were clear that embryos created by cloning techniques were covered by the 1990 Act. They took counsel's advice. They were
  1140
  warned that we might be in the position in which we now find ourselves in 1997 by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It is a great pity that they did not take note of what the Committee said. I shall read out the recommendation that we made that long ago. The Committee—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is starting to make a Second Reading speech. We are discussing the allocation of time. When we have finished doing that, we shall move on to Second Reading, when it will be appropriate to make Second Reading speeches.
  Lynne Jones: What I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is relevant in the sense of what is omitted from the Bill and the time that is available to us to consider important issues. I will not read the exact wording of the Committee's recommendation, but we were clear that the law was ambiguous and sufficiently lax not to catch applications of the Roslin technique. We said:
  "While Counsel's opinion will clarify the position, it will not be a binding interpretation of the law."
  Somewhat momentously, we also said:
  "It is not satisfactory for issues as momentous as this to be left until they are decided through test cases."
  However, that is what has happened. We predicted in March 1997 that it would happen.
  Again, in February 1998, the Committee expressed its concerns to the Government. Again, those concerns were ignored. The Government are now rushing to ban reproductive cloning while allowing the creation of embryos from methods other than fertilisation, including cell nuclear replacement, which is completely unregulated. We know that reproductive cloning is impossible without those earlier stages, which are ignored in the Bill. It would have been much better if the Government had not rushed the legislation—there is time as reproductive cloning is not imminent. Women are not rushing to donate their eggs for that kind of research. There is no emergency, but the matter is urgent.
  The Government should have acted on earlier advice. They are now saying that they will wait for the report from the Lords Stem Cell Research Committee and the outcome of their appeal. That is reasonable because that time scale is reasonably short. If the appeal goes against the Government, they will have to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to change the definition of an embryo to cover all methods used to create one. If they did so, there would be support on both sides of the House. There would be a lot of debate on the proposals, and no doubt people who are opposed to the use of embryos for research would want to express their views and amend the Act. It is proper for them to have the opportunity to do that, even though I disagree with them.
  I am concerned that we are rushing the Bill through today, and that it does not address the crucial issues. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, the prohibitions in the 1990 Act that apply to embryos created through fertilisation do not apply to embryos created through cell nuclear replacement. She listed all the things that are unregulated as a result of the High Court judgment. The Government should address those issues. Everyone supports the Bill, and it would go through relatively quickly with support on both sides of the House. However, it would have been preferable to

  1141
  have at least one more day to debate it. I do not consider the situation to be an emergency. I would much prefer to have had more time to debate the anti-terrorism legislation, which does deal with an emergency.
  Michael Fabricant: Although I support the Bill, the hon. Lady is wrong to say that Members all do. I know that a number of them object to it. Is that why Labour Members are on a three-line Whip?
  Lynne Jones: I do not honestly know why we are on a three-line Whip, as we all had a free vote on the proposals to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Perhaps there was a mistake by the Whips Office, which may not have realised what type of issues the Bill addresses. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would not seek to lean too heavily on Members when we are discussing an issue of such importance.
  I do not think that anybody in the House is opposed to legislation to ban reproductive cloning. That is the simple purpose of the Bill, which I support, but I am concerned that introducing it without addressing therapeutic cloning puts the cart before the horse.
  2.43 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has already given reasons why the guillotine motion is unpleasant and I endorse many comments by Members on both sides of the House on the matter.
  Many of us who are relatively new to the House thought that the days of the crunch guillotine were over and that in the new modernised House, with the Modernisation Committee and programming motions, whatever their merits and demerits, we would not have to deal with such things. Having a guillotine motion imposed on the House without any consultation, even through the usual channels—I am not suggesting that that is necessarily the most inclusive way of doing things on free vote issues—makes the situation even worse
  Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way early in his speech. Like me, does he make a contrast between legislation rushed through the House because of a national emergency and the introduction of a Bill that has been known about since August 2000?
  Dr. Harris: I was coming to that. Whatever one's view of the substantive issue in the Bill, one day is not enough to scrutinise it, as others have said. I am not going to reiterate the point about needing a pause between Second Reading and Committee stage, then Report and Third Reading and, indeed, between consideration in the Commons and Lords. One can take advice during that time and consult constituents and experts.
  The Government are getting into the habit of calling something emergency legislation, then rushing it through as a way of getting themselves out of difficulties unrelated to the emergency. Indeed, they are also getting legislation through using emergency measures that are not really urgent.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as my right hon. Friend the
  1142
  Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, the Government do not need the legislation for the reason that they gave because they can block the entry of that professor under the Immigration Act 1971? Significantly, the Minister failed to answer that point.
  Dr. Harris: The right hon. Member for Maidstone—
  Miss Widdecombe: And the Weald.
  Dr. Harris: I will call her the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) if she will call us the Liberal Democrats, not the Liberals. She gave several reasons why the Bill is not required to stop an Italian self-publicist; all that it seems to do is give credence to his wish for publicity.
  I am keen to concentrate on two other areas, including the Government's general reluctance to allow full debate and amendment to primary legislation on the subject. I cannot understand why they are devoted to seeking to avoid that, unless they feel that there is a problem with allowing free votes and not having the control over matters coming before the House to which they are used. That is regrettable because many of the issues are regarded as free vote issues. Not whipping is pointless if we never get an opportunity to debate such matters and have primary legislation on them. The Government do not like to be in a position where they are not in control; this is not the only area in which we have seen that tendency.
  The Government give the impression of wanting to rush the legislation through as quickly as possible because they do not like debate on such issues per se. Some members of the Government find it difficult to discuss anything to do with reproduction, or let the House debate and come to quick decisions on matters to do with sexual health, reproduction or anything concerning the abortion issue. I suspect that that was also the case with previous Governments. We have a duty in the House not to be embarrassed. We should be prepared to risk wrath or adverse coverage even in the tabloid press to make sure that such things are adequately discussed.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have never known the hon. Gentleman to suffer from a surfeit of embarrassment.
  Dr. Harris: Perhaps I have just brought my clinical training to the House. One cannot refuse to discuss those things, because science and future developments are important to many people.
  The Government's decision to push the Bill through on a guillotine is based on public reaction. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for whom I have a great deal of respect in matters of science, should appear in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall to suggest that the Government must respond to something because there is panicky media coverage of it. That is most unlike him. Both in conversation with me and on the public record, he has always argued for a rational, scientific and considered approach, even in the face of adverse reaction—except, perhaps, in the case telephone communication masts. I remember him contributing to scaremongering on that subject.

  1143
  I urge the Government not to listen to the hon. Gentleman and to take a deep breath when a Daily Mail headline appears. The newspapers are entitled to do their job—they do it well—and cover issues in the news. I do not criticise them for that, but we have a different job, which is to legislate deliberatively.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not even the Daily Mail, the Mirror or any other tabloid has suggested that by seven o'clock tonight we might have a cloned human?
  Dr. Harris: Quite so. In that respect, I have no argument with the activities of the media. Although there was supposed to be a huge fuss, compared with other issues, the reaction to the judgment and to the news from America has been reasonably restrained and educational. I make no criticism of the media in that respect. I criticise the Government for appearing to cite the media coverage as a defence for their timetable.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. The media hype up science stories and take potential science as though it is today's event. The developments at Advanced Cell Technology in the United States were fleeting, marginal and unsustainable in terms of stem cells.
  Dr. Harris: We are not necessarily in disagreement. My main concern is that whatever the accuracy of media reports, we should not legislate on that basis, especially without the benefit of expert opinion. The media will do what the media do, and they always will. We have a free press, and I welcome that.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: When we debated these matters earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman's views were influential in the House. I listened closely to what he said. He will be aware that next week we have two days of Adjournment debates on fisheries and European affairs, neither of which is urgent. Does he agree that if the following stages of the Bill were taken on those two days next week, that would give lay Members such as me sufficient time to get the necessary information and refer to scientific expertise on the subject?
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) catches the Deputy Speaker's eye, perhaps he will suggest that even at this late stage there are means of achieving better scrutiny.
  The Government have defended their timetable on the basis of the sudden judgment given three weeks ago in the High Court. The Minister made that point in her introduction, and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) dealt with that. I want to test 'whether it was a surprise judgment. If it was not, the rationale for the timetable is groundless.
  The Minister knew that there was considerable academic and legal opinion that the advice that she had received, which I accept she got from counsel, was not to be relied on to win the High Court judgment. Several people had questioned whether it was reasonable for the
  1144
  Government to assume that they would win the case. I fear that it may not be reasonable for the Government to assume, as they do, that they will win the appeal.
  According to a book by Robert Lee and Derek Morgan entitled "Human Fertilisation & Embryology", the eminent ethicist Margot Brazier made it clear in 1999 that she had serious doubts. She stated:
  "I would contend that nuclear substitution into an egg cell is unregulated in the United Kingdom today."
  That view was also expressed by Derek Beyleveld and Shaun Pattinson, who stated that in their view—which, I believe, dates from about the same time—a judge may well decide that the matter did not fall within the ambit of the 1990 Act.
  It is even more surprising that the Government should be surprised by that—so surprised that they introduced the timetable—when they were relying on a judge giving a purposive interpretation, rather than a literal one. They believed that there was a ban on activity with cloned embryos outside what they thought was covered by the Bill, such that a criminal prosecution could be launched on the basis of the 1990 Act.
  The Minister must know mat it is extremely unlikely that a judge would deliver a purposive interpretation of statute in order to convict someone who used a literary interpretation as a defence. If people cannot rely on a reasonable, rational, literal interpretation of the law as a defence, the British judicial system is not what it should be.
  Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that not only the academics whom he quoted, but a Committee of the House made the recommendation? We took evidence at the time from the chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and Dr. Ian Wilmut, who was responsible for the creation of Dolly the sheep. In his view, the Act did not cover his technique.
  Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I meant to say that in addition to the points that I made, there were those that she had made, which I would not repeat.
  The Government Chief Whip has left the Chamber, which is unfortunate, but she has been replaced by her admirable deputy. It is worth while asking about the whipping arrangements. It would be useful for the House to know whether there is a running three-line Whip on the guillotine motion. If there is not, it would be useful for a pager message to be sent to hon. Members to clarify the position. If the Government Whips Office is not in communication with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), it is difficult to know whether there will be a free vote for Labour Members on the guillotine motion.
  The Minister cannot have been surprised by the High Court judgment, although she may have been disappointed, as I suspect we all were, as life would have been easier for everyone if the judgment had been otherwise. I certainly want a ban on human reproductive cloning. The Government could have predicted that the problem would occur, and we do not know when the appeal process will end. If the Minister loses in the Court of Appeal, will she take the case to the House of Lords? Will she go to the European Court? Will the other side do those things?

  1145
  It is time for the Government to introduce proper legislation in good time, subject to adequate scrutiny, dealing with this important matter. We have heard about the other protections for the cloned embryo that would apply had the judgment not occurred. The Government should allow therapeutic cloning to go ahead and implement the other recommendations in the Donaldson report relating to consent and what happens to embryonic stem cell lines.
  There is no good argument for the Bill being rushed through Parliament. I hope that at this late stage the Government will relent, that they will not yield to or feed media panic, and that they will allow the House to scrutinise these important matters adequately.
  2.57 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). Although we have often locked horns on the issue, we are at one about the way in which the House should deal with these matters—with great seriousness and attention to detail.
  For a programme motion to be agreed, the Government—who can, of course, simply impose their majority on the House—must win the argument. To win the argument, they must prove two things: first, that the Bill is sufficiently clear, simple and unambiguous, and that it addresses a sufficiently narrow issue for us to debate Second Reading, Committee and Report all in one day. Secondly, the Government must prove to the House that these matters are so urgent that, in addition to being simple, unambiguous and easily disposed of in one day, they must be disposed of by this evening.
  Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No, I will not give way. I intend to speak briefly.
  The Government must convince the House of those two points. Anybody who studies the Bill, the reasoned amendment tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends, and the amendments on the Order Paper which are due for selection, will come to the conclusion that the matter is highly complex. It raises enormous ethical, moral and medical concerns. The amendments, especially those that relate to the definition of embryos and of fertilisation must be debated in full. They cannot be debated in one day.
  It is possible that once hon. Members have exercised their right to address the wider ethical and medical issues on Second Reading, there will be no time for the Committee or Report stage. That is not the way to deal with matters that are of deep moral concern to the nation. That is my first point. Unless the Minister produces arguments to convince us that we are wrong, I do not believe that the Government have proved their point.
  The second point that the Government must prove is that these matters must be resolved either today or very quickly, before the end of the week. Again, they have made no attempt to convince the House that that is the case. The fact of the matter is that no scientist is anywhere near creating a cloned human being and that there is no chance whatever of this Italian gentleman or anybody else creating such a process within the next week. We could easily have devoted a day next week to Second Reading
  1146
  and a day to the Committee stage. We could then have had a proper debate in which all the issues could have been discussed. Do the Government really contend that a scientist could find collaborators, eggs, embryos and women who are willing to be implanted before comprehensive legislation is introduced? Is that their contention in this debate? Surely, the medical risks that are inherent in live birth cloning mean that any doctor who carried out such a procedure would not be acting ethically. Such a doctor could be subject to censure by the General Medical Council and even find himself facing criminal charges for assault.
  The truth is that that will not happen. Everybody in the House knows that it will not happen, so why on earth are the Government again seeking to treat our procedures with such contempt? What is the point? Why can we not have a proper debate on Second Reading and return next week for a proper Committee and Report stage?
  3.1 pm
  Dr. John Pugh: I shall be focused and speak specifically about why I think, as a pro-life supporter, that the idea of imposing a guillotine on the Bill is nonsensical. It deals with a matter of major moral importance that should be the subject of significant consideration in the House. A prolonged debate is the only mechanism for achieving that.
  The Government's procedure seems fundamentally flawed, as they are using statutory instruments and quick Bills to deal with one of the major social issues that is facing the world. As hon. Members have pointed out, certain issues will not be cleared up anyway. They include cross-species implantation and the marketing of embryos, as well as technical issues concerning human rights. All those matters will still be on the table to be dealt with no matter what happens today. It is, therefore, a pity that the Bill is not amendable, as the need will remain for clearing up at the end of the day.
  As a pro-life Member of Parliament, the Bill creates a dilemma for me. It outlaws something that I am against—therapeutic cloning—but not everything. Logically, I can understand that, and I appreciate why the Minister would none the less want us to support the Bill. Obviously, if one supports the banning of heroin, that does not necessarily mean that one is in favour of legalising other drugs. Similarly, if one opposes racial discrimination, that does not mean that one supports other aspects of discrimination. I understand that the pro-life argument must be won by the force of logic and that that principle cannot be abandoned. Any amendment that sought to avoid it would be wrong.
  None the less, it has been reasonably argued in the Chamber that the way in which the Government have proceeded has given ammunition to people who suspect that some sharp practice is going on. It is perfectly clear that we are concerned with the reality of what we are doing and not with appearance, but a fairly serious argument has been put to me by people who say that, by merely introducing this simple Bill and ignoring all the other issues, we are supporting those other issues or sweeping them away. It might be suggested that we are ignoring the substantive issues that people want to debate, which are going through on the nod and undiscussed.
  If that argument exists and the Government will harken to it, there is only one thing that they need to do to correct it: ensure a full and prolonged debate that gives no

  1147
  substance whatever to it. Without that debate, pro-life MPs such as myself are left in a dilemma about which we will have to think hard today. Furthermore, speaking not as a pro-life MP, but a new MP, I am simply amazed that we are dealing in this way with something that is a major issue not only for the House, but for humanity.
  3.3 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Some of the most effective speeches in this debate have also been some of the shortest. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who conveyed such important points so briefly, and to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) for their contributions. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) for drawing our attention to the Lords Select Committee report and to the illogicality of what we are being asked to do today.
  Before I turn to those wider issues, however, I should like to take advantage of the presence of the Advocate-General for Scotland. I do not think that she is winding up the debate, but I should like to point out now that it is not entirely clear to me whether we are dealing with a wholly reserved matter, or whether an enabling or Sewel motion will have to be passed by the Scottish Parliament. If that is the case, how will it relate to the timetabling of the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify that point in her winding-up speech, after her ear has been whispered into. It is relevant to whether we should rush the Bill through today.
  Turning to the wider issue, we are considering not a programme motion, but an old-fashioned guillotine motion. It is the sort of guillotine motion of which I remember Michael Foot introducing five on one day. It has always been a fairly noxious proceeding, but what has made it rather more objectionable—and we are bearing the brunt of this now—is that an ingenious adviser to a previous Leader of the House hit on the great wheeze of incorporating the time for debating this motion into the time that is available for consideration of the Bill itself. The effect was to rob the three-hour timetable motion of its deterrent content. The three hours that are still required previously provided some measure of deterrent and could be used to discourage the Government from using such a procedure. I admit that that was not a very powerful deterrent, but the procedure had a deterrent element. Now it has no such element, however, as the Government can sit back and say, "Ha ha, they will debate the guillotine, and then they won't have any time left for the Bill; not even the little bit that we have offered."
  I am afraid that, in moral terms, that will not do as ground for the Government to stand on. Governments have created this situation and they must now realise that they are offering an insufficient process and shortening it even further by requiring us to discuss whether we should adopt that process in the time that would otherwise be available to debate the substance of the Bill. This is not merely a matter of the debating time that is provided on the first day. As many hon. Members have pointed out, it concerns the staging of a Bill's consideration. These processes are designed to prevent bad legislation.
  I am depressed to say that that is all of a piece with what has been happening generally. The Government's concept of an emergency is extremely wide. It embraces
  1148
  the possibility that there will be reproductive cloning in the next couple of weeks not only in one case, but in thousands of cases that we must attend to. The concept also embraces aspects of the new terrorism legislation, to which I referred earlier, such as the provision of powers relating to the purchase of arms by employees of the Strategic Rail Authority. Heaven knows what other nonsense has been crammed into the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which is supposedly an emergency Bill. It even extends to the ability of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to say to the Rail Regulator that he has authority, if he seeks to use his powers, to bring in emergency legislation.
  That is the framework in which we are now operating. Anything can he an emergency, so anything can justify rushing through legislation in a way that cannot ensure that it is properly dealt with. The procedures in our Standing Orders are enfeebled attempts to ensure that legislation is got right, but they will not do that if we have insufficient time and an inadequate process for considering the Bill, as we have today.
  Government always get their legislation wrong. Generally, they amend it during its passage, as they discover that it is wrong and table Government amendments. That will happen to any Government. It would happen to a Liberal Democrat Government just as much as it would to Labour and Conservative Governments. That is an important point. The difficulty of Labour Members is that they are so reluctant to admit that their particular Government can get things wrong.
  Dr. Gibson: We are never wrong.
  Mr. Beith: That is what we are up against. Unless Back Benchers in Government parties realise that any Government are, in the nature of things, liable to have difficulty in framing law that will achieve its intended purpose, they are wasting their time here, as we must get the legislation right. I adduce as evidence for my argument the number of Government amendments that were introduced even in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. They believed that they had got that Bill right, but they had to amend it.
  I remember a Solicitor-General in the previous Conservative Government taking a Bill to a Select Committee. He said afterwards said that when it reached the Committee—this was an unusual process—he discovered that it did not carry out its intended purposes and could not even be amended so that it did so. He was a very honest and honourable Minister and his remarks illustrate a problem that all Governments have. After all, the Minister will not have sat down and drafted the Bill on her own. She must take advice from others who do such things for her, and they, too, are not infallible and can get things wrong.
  If we agree to the motion, the Government will be under enormous pressure not to table an amendment of their own. If it were discovered during debate of the first group of amendments to be considered in Committee that there was a fundamental fault in the Bill, all the advice, especially from the Government Whips Office, would be the same. The advice would be, "For heaven's sake, don't let a manuscript amendment be tabled; we can't disrupt this procedure and must get the Bill through as we have embarked on this course."

  1149
  I should like again to adduce evidence on how easily Governments can get these matters wrong.
  I was in Committee on the Hunting Bill in the last Session. It became clear to me on reading that Bill that it would also ban deerstalking. Ministers insisted that that was neither the intention nor the effect of the Bill. A couple of Committee sittings later, they came back and said, "Sorry, we have discovered that it really does ban deerstalking. We will, of course, amend it so that it does not do so."
  That is what happens in proceedings on Bills, but if it happens today, the only recourse that the Government will have will be to persuade you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to accept a manuscript amendment. Then there would have to be a Report stage, because the Bill would have been amended. All the pressure would be on the Government not to do that. So, if the Bill is incorrectly drafted—even for its own narrow purpose—the Government will prevent themselves from putting it right.
  But what would happen if we got past that stage? Let us say that we did not discover that the Bill was wrong this afternoon, but that it was discovered later. Where would we end up? Right back where we started from: coming to the House, because a court case had determined that the Government had got the drafting wrong. We are here today because the previous Bill was not drafted correctly. That was an innocent mistake, no doubt, but the purpose of our proceedings in the House is to try to prevent that from happening by getting the drafting right in the first place.
  Bob Spink: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the letter from the Minister which states:
  "The advice we received was that, if challenged, a court was likely to adopt an approach which looks at the purpose of the Act … rather than a strictly literal approach which looks only at the wording in the Act"?
  How can we be confident of that? I am certainly not. Are not these words from the Government's own mouth a self-indictment? Are they not an acknowledgement that the wording of the Bill is far from perfect at the moment? Should we not be taking more time to discuss the Bill, rather than railroading it through?
  Mr. Beith: That letter illustrates the point that I was making earlier, which was that we are in danger of arriving back at the point from which we started, namely that the legislation is not correctly drafted, and that a judge would be unable to construe its purpose from wording so different from the purpose intended. We are getting into the complex territory of Pepper v. Hart, and we should not spend too much time on that this afternoon. Suffice it to say that we cannot rely on a judge interpreting a statute to mean what we meant it to say, if it can clearly be seen not to. That may not be apparent at the initial stages of drafting.
  My plea to Labour Members is to recognise the reality of life in Government. Governments get legislation wrong and it is, therefore, important that the legislative process enables mistakes to be spotted, amendments to be made and other relevant issues to be raised. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made the significant point that the matters on which the Government are launching an appeal this afternoon are those to which the issue of urgency apply. It may be the preference of the
  1150
  Government—and, perhaps, of many people in the House—to confine the Bill to one part of the problem, but if it becomes apparent in the course of this appeal that that was ill advised, we shall have made an error by rushing the Bill through without at least considering the inclusion of some of the other issues.
  The House has left itself without any process by which to protect the concept of an emergency or of urgency. Most legislative assemblies have some way of distinguishing processes of urgency or emergency. In many cases, they require the agreement of more than one of the parties, or weighted majorities. In some legislatures, the occupant of your office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the others who occupy the Chair in the House, have a role in deciding whether a Bill should be certified as appropriate for emergency status. We lack any such procedures. I have given three examples, of which this is one, in which legislation—or parts of legislation—to which no one could reasonably apply the concept of urgency has been brought in under urgency procedures.
  Mr. Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the concerns is that Lord Brennan—who is, after all, a former chairman of the Bar Council and art extremely eminent lawyer—tabled amendments in the other place that were not accepted? His final words in the debate were to the effect that he hoped that the Government would consider the arguments more fully and come up with their own amendments. Of course, none of that has been done.
  Mr. Beith: That point is well made and reasonable, and comes from a source who has no partisan motive, only a desire to get the law right.
  There are only two ways in which we can now halt this process. One is for the House to defeat this motion, and I appeal to Labour Members who take a close interest in these proceedings to use their votes accordingly and to ignore their pagers. I suspect, however, that more people have been reading their pagers than have been following the proceedings, even on television around the building.
  Secondly, the Government have limited means of bringing the proceedings to a halt, because they alone can introduce dilatory motions on the Bill which would alter the way in which we carry on the proceedings from here. But if the Government are not to create further bad precedents, and further increase their reputation for abusing processes designed for emergencies or urgency, they must change the proceedings on this Bill. Never at any stage in our argument today has the Minister adduced substantial reasons to treat this as a matter of urgency. It is not a matter of urgency. It is important, and should be dealt with reasonably expeditiously, but not in a way that prevents us from getting the legislation right.
  3.15 pm
  Mr. David Amess: There has been just one voice in favour of these shabby proceedings this afternoon—that of the Minister. Having listened to many guillotine debates, I think that these proceedings have been historic. We have listened to hon. Members from all parts of the House express outrage about them. In particular, I commend the speeches by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden).

  1151
  There is no doubt that this is a dreadful Government. The Minister, in trying to justify herself, wrote us all a letter, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) referred earlier.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there are hon. Members in the House who approve of the motion, but who are not speaking because they want more time to get on to the main business?
  Mr. Amess: Oh, for goodness sake. It is a pathetic argument to say that we should not speak on the motion because hon. Members want to get on with the Bill.
  In the letter that the Minister sent to hon. Members she gives the impression that she and her colleagues have taken the time to listen to the points made in the House of Lords, so that the Government could reflect on the issues and the democratically elected Members of the House of Commons could consider this important moral measure. Does the Minister honestly think that these shabby proceedings fulfil the intentions set out in that letter?
  The Government were given a great deal of expert advice, but they failed to listen to it. Who is to blame for this crisis? None other than this rotten Government. They are absolutely incompetent, and they specialise in rubbishy legislation. They have excelled themselves today in showing how low they are prepared to stoop.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?
  Hon. Members: He has finished.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I will put the question.
  Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, perhaps, the Minister had not indicated quite decisively enough that she wished to intervene to deal with the point that I addressed to the Advocate-General? I wonder whether you could establish whether the Minister or the Advocate-General wished to reply.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Had the Minister indicated that she wished to address the House, I would, of course, have called her.
  Mr. Heald rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is this on a point of order?
  Mr. Heald: Actually, I was going to ask leave of the House to make one or two remarks.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have gone past that point now.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a further insult to the House that the Minister has declined to reply to this debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 171.

  Division No. 93]

  [3.19 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Dowd, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Edwards, Huw

  Alexander, Douglas

  Efford, Clive

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Etherington, Bill

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Atkins. Charlotte

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Austin, John

  Flint, Caroline

  Bailey, Adrian

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Baird, Vera

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Barnes, Harry

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Galloway, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bennett, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Berry, Roger

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Best, Harold

  Gilroy, Linda

  Blackman, Liz

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Goggins, Paul

  Blizzard, Bob

  Girths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Borrow, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Hanson, David

  Brennan, Kevin

  Havard, Dai

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Henderson. Ivan (Harwich)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hendrick. Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Cairns, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Heyes, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Casale, Roger

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Challen, Colin

  Hope, Phil

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Chaytor, David

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clarke. Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clelland, David

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Coleman, Iain

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Joyce, Eric

  Cox, Tom

  Kaufman. Rt Hon Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cruddas, Jon

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Kidney, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  David, Wayne

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davidson, Ian

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lammy, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Doran, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  1153

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Levitt Tom

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Linton, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  Luke, Iain

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sawford, Phil

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacDougall, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheerman, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKechin, Ann

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Simon, Siôn

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane. Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mann, John

  Southworth, Helen

  Marris, Rob

  Squire, Rachel

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stringer, Graham

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Miliband, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mole, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moran, Margaret

  Touhig, Don

  Morley, Elliot

  Truswell, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mountford, Kali

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mudie, George

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tynan, Bill

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Oaten, Mark

  Ward, Ms Claire

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Organ, Diana

  Watson, Tom

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  White, Brian

  Owen, Albert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pearson, Ian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Perham, Linda

  Picking, Anne

  Wills, Michael

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winnick, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Pope, Greg

  Woodward, Shaun

  Pound, Stephen

  Woolas, Phil

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wyatt, Derek

  Purchase, Ken

  Purnell, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beggs, Roy

  Amess, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bercow, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Bacon, Richard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Baker, Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Baron, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Barrett, John

  Brady, Graham

  1154

  Brake, Tom

  Letwin, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lidington, David

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burnett, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Burns, Simon

  Loughton, Tim

  Butterfill, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cameron, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cash, William

  Maples, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chidgey, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mercer, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Norman, Archie

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Oaten, Mark

  Öpik, Lembit

  Collins, Tim

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Conway, Derek

  Page, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Paice, James

  Cotter, Brian

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Price, Adam

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Prisk, Mark

  Dobbin, Jim

  Pugh, Dr John

  Dodds, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Doughty, Sue

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Drew, David

  Rendel, David

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Fallen, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Fight, Howard

  Ruffley, David

  Flook, Adrian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sanders, Adrian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Selous, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gibb, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Goodman, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gray, James

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grayling, Chris

  Spink, Bob

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Streeter, Gary

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Swire, Hugo

  Harvey, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Heath, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hoban, Mark

  Thurso, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Horam John

  Tredinnick, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyler paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Key, Robert

  Weir, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whittingdale, John

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Wilkinson, John

  Lamb, Norman

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Willis, Phil

  1155

  Wilshire, David

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Wishart, Pete

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Charles Hendry and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. Laurence Robertson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords]—

  Timetable
  1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Seven o'clock.

  Questions to be put
  2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

  (a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,

  (b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

  3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
  4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  Miscellaneous
  6. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting.
  7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement, and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
  8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
  9. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
  10. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
  11. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
  12. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on the Bill have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
  13. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his pre-Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much of the report by Mr. Derek Wanless, especially its comments about methods of funding the national health service in the future. At a press conference today, Mr. Wanless said that it was "presumptuous and premature" to "bury" other models of paying for health care, such as the use of social insurance to meet accelerating NHS costs. Has the Chancellor sought to clarify the impression that he gave the House and the country earlier this week?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The Chair has received no such notification, but Ministers will have heard what has been said.

Orders of the Day

  Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As the House will know, the other place passed the Bill without amendment on Monday.
  It might help if I explain some of the terminology at the outset. For the purpose of the debate, "human reproductive cloning" means the creation of a new human being through the use of an embryo that has not been created by fertilisation—that is, by the use of sperm and eggs. Cloning may involve the process of cell nuclear replacement, as described in the report of the chief medical officer's expert group, or it may involve another technique such as parthenogenesis. The Bill deals with reproductive cloning—and reproductive cloning alone.
  So-called therapeutic cloning is the use of cloned embryos for research. I shall deal with the background shortly—in particular, I shall refer to the effect of the recent judgment in the High Court—but I shall say now that, although the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 lays down strict rules for the use of embryos in research, as the law stands, as a result of the judgment, those rules apply only to embryos created by fertilisation.
  The deliberate approach adopted in the Bill is not to be prescriptive in regard to cloning techniques. This will ensure that the ban that we seek applies to embryos created in any way other than by fertilisation. It will ensure that we include techniques that may currently be considered unachievable or impossible.
  Mr. John Gummer: Would the Minister be willing to find a word that is closer to reality than "personalisation"? The trouble with the whole debate is that, in all circumstances, nice comfortable words are used rather than words denoting the reality. The fact is that what is proposed is the banning of something that is unnatural and unacceptable, and which most people find disgraceful. Can we try to use the proper words? "Personalisation" is surely a fabricated term—similar to "termination of pregnancy", which is used in preference to "killing babies".
  Ms Blears: I do not think that I have used the word "personalisation". I am trying to be careful, accurate, clear and focused in describing exactly what we are trying to achieve. The Bill is simple and straightforward, and I am attempting to use language that is not capable of misinterpretation.
  The Bill's purpose is to ban human reproductive cloning by the placing in a woman of an embryo that has been created in any way other than by fertilisation. The effect is, of course, that only an embryo created by fertilisation may lawfully be placed in a woman. The Bill is short and tightly drawn in order to meet that aim, and that aim only.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: What consideration has the Minister given to the reproductive cloning of
  1158
  human beings outside a woman's body, in vitro, in animals or even—10, 15 or 20 years down the line—in a man's body? The Bill should take such possibilities into account. Is not the Minister merely plugging the gap when the flood is on the horizon?
  Ms Blears: Those issues have been raised, and I shall come to them. They are important.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests that I am merely plugging a gap. In fact, I am trying to plug a legal loophole. I fully acknowledge the existence of other matters that, if the Government's appeal against the judgment fails, will need to be revisited extensively. I want to record the Government's commitment in this respect: if the appeal fails and a whole area of activity is unregulated, we must clearly ensure that it is properly and rigorously regulated in future. The Bill's purpose is to plug the legal loophole that has arisen as a result of the judgment, and to bring back an arrangement that I think that all Members want—the outlawing of reproductive cloning.
  Dr. Liam Fox: The Minister says that clarity is important. One of the main reasons why the Government lost the recent case related to the definition of "embryo". What is the definition of "embryo" for the purposes of the Bill? Is it the same as the definition in the 1990 Act?
  Ms Blears: Yes, it is.
  The reason for the court judgment was the construction that the judge put on the terms of the statute. He said that he would take a literal construction of the words used: because of the reference to embryos created by fertilisation, embryos created by cell nuclear replacement or, indeed, other methods would not be covered by the regulatory framework in the 1990 Act.
  The Bill provides the definition of
  "a human embryo … created otherwise than by fertilisation".
  We seek to replicate the language used in the 1990 Act, so that confusion is not created by the use of different terms in different pieces of legislation. The framing of the definition in the Bill, however, is intended to bridge a gap that might otherwise exist. The 1990 Act refers to all embryos created by fertilisation; our Bill refers to all embryos created other than by fertilisation. I hope that that will ensure a seamless transition.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister listened to the earlier debate, and knows of concern in the House about the speed with which the Bill is being passed. Can she give a categorical undertaking that, if the Government lose the appeal to which she has referred and further legislation is called for, that legislation will not be rushed through in the same way?
  Ms Blears: If the Government lost the appeal, a series of issues—many of which Members have mentioned today—would need to be considered. Another likely factor is the report of the House of Lords Stem Cell Research Committee that has been examining a range of matters. We may not be able to deal with both those things until January or February next year. We shall need to consider the issues very carefully, especially if there are

  1159
  areas of unregulated activity in what is admittedly an extremely important and sensitive moral, ethical and political issue.
  Andy King: We all welcome the Government's attempt to plug the gap. I do not think that a single Member present would say "I am in favour of human cloning". Our concern, I feel, relates to ensuring that we get this right.
  The Bill may be straightforward, but some of us think that it does not go far enough. I welcome the Minister's confirmation that, if we fail to win the appeal, we are committed to revisiting the issue and ensuring that legislation is in place to stop the harvesting and the use of that dreadful technology to subvert current legislation.
  I have no problem with—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in this place long enough to know that he cannot make a statement in an intervention; he must put a brief question. I think that enough has been heard.
  Ms Blears: As I said, I am trying to ensure that United Kingdom law reflects—
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Blears: I shall when I have managed to complete a sentence.
  We are trying to ensure that UK law adequately reflects what Parliament has tried to achieve. The Bill's purpose, therefore, is to enable us to ban human reproductive cloning, for which I think that there is broad support, and to look at the issues, depending on the outcome of the legal process.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I tried to intervene earlier because I did not want to lose the answer given to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). His question was not whether there will he issues to be discussed—there are issues today to be discussed—but was very specific. He asked the Minister to give a cast-iron guarantee that if we have to discuss those issues further because the Government lose the appeal or for another reason, a proper structured consideration will take place with proper standard time between the various stages of any consequent Bill. That is the question.
  Ms Blears: I assure the right hon. Lady that there will be full and proper discussion and consideration. These are very important and sensitive matters that are important to the whole community.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The key issue that I should like the Minister to address is what the Government will do if they lose the appeal. Is she saying that if they lose, they will not appeal to the House of Lords, but legislate? What will happen if the Government win and the other side appeals to the House
  1160
  of Lords? If there are further appeals that continue to reverse the judgment, the unclosed loophole may long remain a no man's land.
  Ms Blears: I am keen to avoid getting into that position. There is clearly tension in the issue; some people say that it is urgent and that we should debate it next week while others say that we should wait until we see all the implications once the result of the appeal is known. It would be wrong of me to say that I can anticipate the contents of the Court of Appeal decision. We want to see that judgment before deciding whether it is appropriate to appeal to the House of Lords. If the Government win the appeal, the other side may wish to appeal; I certainly cannot comment on its possible decision. However, we shall seek to expedite the legal process and make our decisions as quickly as we possibly can. We recognise the issue's importance and urgency.
  Glenda Jackson: Does not my hon. Friend find it ironic that Opposition Members spent more than two hours castigating the Government for affording insufficient time to examine a very small and tightly focused Bill but are now attempting to bounce the Government into making a commitment based on the hypothetical result of a case that is yet to be heard?
  Ms Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that we need to try to make some progress on the substantive matters in the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: As someone who sat through the previous debate without contributing to it because I wanted to get on to the substance of the issue, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way now. I must press her, however, to return to of the implantation of a cloned human embryo in an animal or artificial womb. She seemed to suggest in an earlier reply that the Bill would create seamless provision should the appeal be lost, but it would not do that because another loophole would arise: the implantation of a cloned embryo not in a woman but elsewhere. How do the Government intend to deal with that gap in the legislation?
  Ms Blears: I have made it clear that, should the appeal fail, the Government will have to return to a number of issues—not only that raised b) the hon. Gentleman—to ensure that all such activity is properly regulated in a legal framework. We are seeking in this legislation to address the most important issue for Parliament and the public: a ban on human reproductive cloning. I acknowledge that the other issues are important, but they will have to be addressed in the light of the legal judgment and the House of Lords Select Committee report. We can then ensure that the legislation that we pass is robust and properly grounded and addresses the issues that are causing concern.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you and to the Minister for making this point of order, but I think that it might help the House. Could you make it plain that we will have an opportunity to vote on the reasoned amendment at the end of this debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not, it is true, announce that at the beginning of the debate but was

  1161
  going to do so when the Minister finished speaking. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). That job is now done; thank you.
  Ms Blears: I shall try to make some progress.
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Blears: No, I shall try to make some progress.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Blears: No, I am not giving way now.
  The Bill's purpose is to ban human reproductive cloning by the placing in a woman of an embryo that has been created in any way other than by fertilisation. I should say a little about the background including the judicial review brought by the ProLife Alliance.
  The judicial review challenged the Government's view that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 governed all embryos—those created by cell nuclear replacement as well as those created by fertilisation. As hon. Members will know, the High Court decided in its judgment of 15 November—just two weeks ago—that cell nuclear replacement embryos were not governed by the 1990 Act. I shall deal later with the judgment's effect and some of the concerns that have been expressed about the Bill.
  I am not sure that I need to set out a short history of the subject as hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber seem to have a full, in-depth grasp of the issue and the current position.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Blears: No, I shall press on a wee bit.
  Hon. Members will know that we had various inquiries, White Papers, Green Papers and legislation before the passage of the 1990 Act. That legislation has lasted us for more than 10 years and provides one of the world's most comprehensive systems of control on the use of embryos in treatment and research.
  The Warnock committee considered cloning, although in the 1980s and early 1990s the science had not developed as it has today. The committee recognised that there would be such developments and discussed the possibility of reproductive and, indeed, therapeutic cloning. Its conclusion on those issues was that
  "public anxiety about these techniques centres, not so much on their therapeutic use, but on the idea of the deliberate creation of human beings with specific characteristics."
  That concern is widely shared today.
  In February 1997, the news of the birth of Dolly the sheep showed for the first time that embryos could be created by the process of cell nuclear replacement that would lead to a live birth in a mammal. It involved replacing the nucleus of an egg—which contains almost all the genetic material—with nucleus taken from an adult cell. The implications of the technique for humans were discussed in the March 1997 report of the Science and Technology Committee, which recorded the fact that the
  1162
  Government and the HFEA were seeking counsel's advice on whether embryos created by cell nuclear replacement would be governed by the 1990 Act.
  The problem with the 1990 Act is that it says, among other things, that embryos governed by the Act are
  "live human embryos where fertilisation is complete".
  The process of cell nuclear replacement, which leads in the normal way to a birth, clearly does not involve fertilisation. Our advice from counsel was that, if challenged, the courts would look at the purpose of the Act—that is, to regulate the creation and use of embryos—rather than look literally at the words used.
  Mr. Redwood: Given the awful muddle since 1997 and the failure so far to reflect the will of the House then and now, would not the Minister be well advised to produce a rather stronger measure today, or at a later stage if she cannot do so immediately? I fear that we shall go through precisely the same dreadful process all over again because she is not listening carefully to the very real concerns of hon. Members and the public.
  Ms Blears: I am listening carefully, and I have tried to make it clear that this is a narrow, tightly drawn and focused Bill that will make human reproductive cloning illegal in the United Kingdom, which is what I believe that the public and Parliament want.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does the Minister agree that if the HFEA granted a licence, it would prevent the production of an embryo other than by fertilisation, and its export? In other words, the licence is granted carefully to control the research. Many of the criticisms of the Bill are therefore false.
  Ms Blears: Yes. I am trying to make it clear that the Bill has the specific aim of plugging the legal loophole. I fully recognise that hon. Members have a range of other concerns that may well need to be addressed, but the important priority today is to ensure that we pass the Bill.
  In the previous debate several hon. Members mocked the fact that the Government had received advice that the courts were likely to construe the legislation in a purposive way. In fact, Mr. Justice Crane, in his judgment two weeks ago said that the Government had a powerful argument for a purposive construction and he has given us leave to appeal. The Government did not receive bad legal advice and were not caught out by the judgment. The judge himself said that there was a powerful argument for a purposive construction but, in the circumstances, he chose a literal construction and was not prepared to infer that the 1990 Act covered embryos created by means other than fertilisation. Therefore, I do not accept that the issue is clear cut or black and white. Litigation occurs precisely because issues are unclear, and the Government were right to take counsel's advice and proceed accordingly.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: It was the lack of clarity about which Bernard Braine, when he was a Member of Parliament in the 1990s, was worried. Some of us are still concerned that issues other than the narrow one covered by the Bill need to be dealt with, which is

  1163
  why we ask that the legal brains in the Department of Health come back in the near future with a Bill that will tighten the law properly.
  Ms Blears: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the brains in the Department will be focused on all the issues raised by hon. Members in their contributions today.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: In the previous debate, I mentioned Europe. If the Minister intends to revisit the matter in further legislation, it is important to decide the Government's attitude to the different approach being taken in Europe.
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman said in the previous debate that he was pleased that the issue was one for national competence, as am I, but we will take into account the views of the European Parliament temporary committee, which is in plenary session today. Its deliberations will form part of the information that we will consider, but we will continue to deal with the matter as part of our national competence.
  On the basis of proper legal advice, the Government took the view that all embryos that have the potential to become human life are regulated by the 1990 Act and subject to all its protective provisions and regulation by the HFEA—that anyone who wanted to create an embryo by fertilisation or in any other way, such as by cell nuclear replacement, would require a licence from the HFEA and would have to satisfy the stringent conditions laid down in the Act. Anyone who created or used embryos without a licence would be subject to the Act's criminal sanctions, involving a fine or imprisonment or both. Our approach to the definition of "embryo" also meant that the creation of embryos by cell nuclear replacement for research, which has enormous potential for finding cures for serious diseases, could go ahead subject to the full rigour of regulation of such research under the 1990 Act, including licensing by the HFEA.
  In the event, in the judicial review brought by the ProLife Alliance, Mr. Justice Crane, while acknowledging that the Government had a "powerful case", decided to adopt a literal interpretation of the words used. The effect of his judgment is that embryos created other than by fertilisation are not regulated by the 1990 Act. In practical terms, that means that as the law stands anyone may create an embryo by cell nuclear replacement and use it either for reproductive cloning or for research purposes without regulation under the Act. We were given leave to appeal against the judge's decision. We have lodged that appeal this afternoon and we intend to pursue it.
  It is important to note that the judgment, while limiting the type of embryos to which the 1990 Act applied, did not affect the operation of the Act in any way: nor did it affect the Research Purposes Regulations 2001. The Act and the regulations continue fully to protect embryos created by fertilisation and used in treatment and research.
  Dr. Fox: What will be the position in respect of the exportation of CNR embryos after the passage of the Bill, taking into account the 1990 Act and the requirement for the issue of licences?
  Ms Blears: As the law stands today, the creation of embryos by cell nuclear replacement and their use is not
  1164
  regulated. The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter that will need to be taken into account, but the purpose of the Bill is to deal with human reproductive cloning in the UK.
  As hon Members are aware, the purposes for which embryos may be used in research were extended earlier this year, following considerable debate in this House and in another place.
  Dr. Iddon: Assuming that the Bill is enacted, it is important to establish whether the HFEA would have the power, under the licences that it grants, to prevent the situation mentioned by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
  Ms Blears: I have just answered that question. As the law stands, the HFEA would not have that power. Those matters need to be addressed, but the Bill is an urgent measure designed to deal with a particular issue.
  Earlier this year, the Research Purposes Regulations 2001 extended the use to which embryos could be put. Both Houses voted by very large majorities to permit embryos to be used for stem cell research in the light of evidence of the enormous potential benefits of such research for treating some very serious and disabling conditions.
  I have said that the aim of the Bill is to ban human reproductive cloning. That meets the Government's aim, announced in August 2000, to introduce legislation to place the ban on reproductive cloning on a statutory footing. Previously, the ban was based on the HFEA's decision not to issue a licence should anyone seek to carry out reproductive cloning, but under the law as it stands following the judgment anyone could clone embryos in the UK without having to apply for a licence. That is why we need the Bill.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: The essence of the Minister's case is that we need the Bill today to fill a legal loophole. Will she please explain why we need that loophole filled today, why it is being filled in such a short time and why she is refusing to address in the Bill the concerns raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends and others?
  Ms Blears: I explained in the previous debate that we must take these measures urgently because of the stated intention of people from overseas to come here and undertake human reproductive cloning. Another factor is the developments in the US last week, which show that the technology has moved on. If we allowed a lengthy delay, human reproductive cloning could take place in this country, despite the fact that all hon. Members and the public agree that they do not want that to happen. Therefore, it is right to introduce a tightly drawn measure to ensure that it cannot happen.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the Minister confirm the irony of the fact that it is the ProLife Alliance that has left us in this confusion? The consequences of our unregulated state are a direct result of its actions.
  Ms Blears: It is unfortunate that the current position is that an embryo created by fertilisation has the full

  1165
  protection of the law and regulation by HFEA, but one created by cell nuclear replacement technology does not. That is a matter for concern.
  Of course, with any judgment in the High Court, we would in the ordinary way await the outcome of the legal process before deciding on the best way forward. If the outcome proves to be in the Government's favour, all embryos, however they are created, would continue to be governed by the protective provisions in the 1990 Act, and reproductive cloning would continue to be banned by the HFEA.
  In this case, however, the Government have made absolutely clear on many occasions their opposition to reproductive cloning and their intention to introduce a Bill on the matter. As other hon. Members have noted, that was a manifesto commitment, and it is what concerns the House today.
  The prospects of leaving unregulated—in the light of the judgment—the safety and ethical issues involved in bringing into the world artificially a cloned human being are such that the Government have decided to introduce a Bill to address the issue, on which there is overwhelming public and worldwide support.
  Of course we need to have a debate, but I doubt that we will hear in the House today, or in another place, any real argument that we should not ban reproductive cloning, or that we should not be proposing one today. However, the wider questions relating to the research use of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement, although very important, do not require an urgent response in the same way as reproductive cloning and we shall, as is absolutely proper, await the outcome of the Government's appeal.
  If the Government lose that appeal, we have made it clear that we will introduce further legislation when parliamentary time allows to ensure that cloned embryos have fully the same protection as embryos created by fertilisation.
  Mr. Redwood: The Minister makes a powerful case for committing us to the legislative seas, and I welcome what she has said about the Government's intentions, but would not it be better to go to sea in a boat than in a sieve? She has also admitted that there will be many loopholes in the legislation that she is proposing, and she has not explained that.
  Ms Blears: No, I have made it clear that the Bill is aimed at preventing the mischief of human reproductive cloning in the UK, and I have explained that the Bill will succeed in doing so.
  The Government's view on the regulation of CNR embryos used in research is that the practice should not be banned, but that it should be allowed to continue under the strict regulatory scheme of the 1990 Act. That will properly put into effect the will of Parliament, which was decided after lengthy debate on the research regulations earlier this year.
  Lynne Jones: The problem is that human reproductive cloning does not begin when the embryo is implanted into the woman. The process involved is similar to that used in therapeutic cloning, which is completely unregulated in this country, as my hon. Friend the Minister has acknowledged. That is a far
  1166
  more urgent matter than banning the implantation of such an embryo. No one has so far created an embryo ready for implantation, but we allow people to experiment in that direction. That is the big loophole that the Bill does not close.
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge that the science in this area is moving on very quickly indeed. We must take measures to ensure that no embryos are implanted in women in the way that has been described.
  Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Ms Blears: No, I want to make progress, and deal with the provisions of the Bill.
  The Bill is very simple, with just two clauses. The first clause deals with the offence, and provides that a person who places in a woman a human embryo that has been created otherwise than by fertilisation is guilty of an offence. The wording is very similar to that used in the 1990 Act, which, for example, makes it an offence to place in a woman an embryo other than a live human embryo.
  If the embryo has been created by fertilisation—that is, using sperm and eggs—it will fall into the definition of "embryo" under the 1990 Act, and will be subject to all the protection of that Act. However, if the embryo has been created in any way other than by fertilisation—and that includes techniques such as cell nuclear replacement and parthenogenesis—it may not be implanted into a woman. As I mentioned earlier, by not defining or listing these techniques we have ensured that the Bill bans any procedure that is currently known about, and those that may be developed in the future.
  Any attempt at listing or defining banned procedures would almost certainly ensure that this Bill would be out of date within months, given the advances taking place in this area. We have therefore adopted the approach that makes it an offence to place any embryo into a woman other than one created by fertilisation. That is a sensible approach in the current circumstances.
  The Bill provides also that a person who commits the offence is liable on conviction on indictment, in a Crown court, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or a fine, or both. However, as with offences under the 1990 Act that also raise particular issues of public policy, a prosecution cannot be brought under the Bill without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Mr. Michael Weir: Clause 1(3) provides that a prosecution can be brought only with the consent of the DPP. I have tabled an amendment for consideration in Committee because I am concerned that there is no provision to ensure that, in Scotland, such a prosecution may be brought might only by the Lord Advocate. There exists in Scotland a procedure that allows private prosecutions to be brought, although its use is extremely rare. I am worried that the Bill does not specifically close that loophole.
  I should be interested to know what the Minister thinks about that, as I can think of two such cases that have been brought in the past few years.
  Ms Blears: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment on this matter, so it might be helpful if I deal with the point now.

  1167
  In Scotland, the Lord Advocate heads the prosecution system. Constitutionally, he is the only person who can institute criminal prosecutions, unless someone has applied for a Bill of Letters to be issued in the High Court of Justiciary for permission to bring a private prosecution. That course of action is extraordinarily rare.
  The situation in Scotland is therefore different from that in England. In Scotland, it is normally the Lord Advocate who brings prosecutions, whereas in England prosecutions can be brought by local authorities and a range of different enforcement authorities. In England, therefore, in connection with matters of public policy, legislation must provide that the DPP will be consulted. In Scotland, the person normally bringing proceedings is the Lord Advocate, so the Bill need not contain an equivalent requirement. The constitutional difference means that the Lord Advocate will normally be the person bringing the prosecution, so there is no need to seek his consent or involve him in the proceedings.
  It is a technical, legal distinction, but an important one, given the different legal systems in Scotland and England.
  Mr. Lansley: I recognise that in clause 1(3) the Minister is simply following the provisions of section 42 of the 1990 Act, but would not it have been simpler and more targeted for the Government to amend section 3(2) of that Act? That would have brought the placing in a woman of an embryo created otherwise than by fertilisation under the short list of prohibitions contained in that section. The result would have been that an offence would have been created in the same way as is provided for in the Bill. Why do the Government prefer to have two pieces of legislation, when one could have been amended?
  Ms Blears: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct. The 1990 Act is extensive, with many clauses and schedules and many definitions. I am not convinced that his suggestion is a more accurate drafting point. The Bill is drafted to achieve an objective. I believe that it will achieve that objective, and that the House should support it this afternoon for that reason.
  Clause 2 extends the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland, and provides that it may be extended to the Channel Islands if an order is made. The Bill is a UK Bill, and so of course extends to Scotland and Wales. That makes the extent of the Bill the same as that of the 1990 Act.
  Questions have been asked about the extension of the Bill to Scotland. I should like to reassure hon. Members that the Bill does extend to Scotland, and that the offences under the Bill cannot be prosecuted in Scotland without the permission of the Lord Advocate. The convention for Westminster Bills that apply to Scotland in this way is that they all apply to Scotland unless the converse is stated on the face of the Bill.
  These are wholly reserved matters. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked whether a Sewel motion would be needed on this issue, but I can assure him that it is a wholly reserved matter. Schedule 5, part II, head J3 to the Scotland Act 1998 covers embryology, surrogacy and genetics, and specifically refers to the subject matter of the 1990 Act. It is therefore covered perfectly properly in the Bill.
  1168
  The Bill does not use terms such as "cell nuclear replacement" or "cloning" because such terms may mean different things both now and in the future in an area of rapidly developing science, and because the Bill is aimed at preventing anything other than fertilised embryos using sperm and eggs from being implanted into a woman. That is the mischief at which it is aimed.
  The additional and very significant benefits of that approach arise from the fact that all embryos created by fertilisation—which are the only embryos that may be implanted under this Bill—are automatically subject to the full protection of the 1990 Act. That means that the only embryos that may be implanted into a woman are those that are subject to licensing by the authority.
  The only question that needs to be asked, therefore, is: how was the embryo created? If the answer is by fertilisation, the embryo may be implanted, but only in accordance with a licence. If the answer is by a means other than fertilisation, as a result of this Bill the embryo may not be implanted at all. This approach means that current and future techniques that may not be described as cloning will be fully covered by the ban.
  As we have seen with the 1990 Act, the science is developing. What is not thought possible as an embryo today may well be an embryo tomorrow. This Bill concerns reproductive cloning. It addresses those embryos that may develop to become a human being. There is absolutely no reason why we should seek to restrict the definition of what an embryo created other than by fertilisation is, because any such attempt is likely to become out of date in a short time. Nor is there any point in trying to define what we mean by an embryo created by fertilisation because that is fully covered by the 1990 Act.
  Mr. David Cameron: Perhaps the Minister can help to clear up the confusion. It concerns to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). If the problem is that cloned embryos are not subject to the restrictions that embryos produced by sperm and egg are, why not make cloned embryos subject to the 1990 Act by amending that legislation?
  Ms Blears: I have already dealt with that matter in my answer to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Extensive amending legislation might be required, but today we are considering urgent emergency legislation to deal with a particular issue of great concern to people inside and outside the House. It is a small, direct Bill, not extensive amending legislation.
  Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Blears: No, I want to make some progress.
  There was considerable debate in the other place about whether a one-cell embryo was an embryo. This Bill is clear that it governs any embryo created other than by fertilisation. Any embryo is a human embryo if it has the potential, should it be implanted, to develop into a human being from the moment it is created. That includes a one-cell embryo. I hope that that clears the matter up.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I understand the Government's difficulty in not seeking to outline further definitions. A question has been raised about a dedifferentiated cell that

  1169
  was originally produced from an embryo formed by fertilisation but that has been taken back to the embryonic stage by a method of dedifferentiation. Would that fall within the fertilised regulation or the other-than-created-by-fertilisation provision in the Bill? If the Minister does not know, does she accept that that is a problem?
  Ms Blears: I am not entirely sure what kind of cell the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will certainly endeavour during today's proceedings to ensure that he gets a full and comprehensive answer to his point.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Blears: No, I will not give way at this point.
  Several hon. Members have expressed concern about the prospect of taking a cloned embryo abroad. It is true to say that following the judgment there is nothing to stop someone creating a cloned embryo in the UK and sending it for use by a woman in treatment abroad. I am not aware that anyone wants to do that at this stage.
  As the law stands, the 1990 Act governs only embryos created by fertilisation, but the Act gives the HFEA control over practices in licensed clinics that are not strictly regulated by the Act Obviously it is a matter for the HFEA to decide, but I hope that if that situation were to occur it would take that into account in looking at how clinics and individuals are licensed to carry out such activity.
  The possibility of placing embryos in animals, men or artificial wombs has been raised. I understand hon. Members' concerns about those matters. If the judgment is lost, all the issues will need to be considered.
  The Government appreciate that there may be concern about the potential research uses of a variety of techniques. We have promised, therefore, a legislative response on the research use of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement. We will certainly commit ourselves to doing that, should we lose the appeal. There will be a whole range of issues to consider, and we hope that we will also have the benefit of the conclusions of the House of Lords Select Committee report to help us with that consideration.
  In summary, the Government take the view that the Bill is necessary to ensure that no one considers the United Kingdom as an option for undertaking human reproductive cloning. In the light of the High Court judgment, it is important that we pass the Bill. There are, of course, other issues that flow from the judgment relating to the use of cloned embryos in research. The Government are concerned that those embryos are given the same protection as embryos created by fertilisation. For that reason the Government are appealing against the High Court decision. If the appeal succeeds, the cloned embryos will also be protected by the 1990 Act. If the appeal fails, the Government will introduce legislation to ensure that research on cloned embryos is properly and rigorously regulated.
  The Bill encapsulates the views of the vast majority of British people who find the possibility of human reproductive cloning abhorrent and I commend it to the House.
  4.16 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: There is a difference of approach between the Government and the Opposition on this issue in that the Government have a three-line Whip in operation and the Opposition have a free vote. Perhaps it would be useful at the outset if I set out why the Opposition take this view.
  Our decision not to oppose the Bill is based on three separate reasons. First, during deliberations over many months the House has repeatedly made it clear that there is no wish for reproductive cloning to be legal in the United Kingdom. The second reason relates to the perceived threat of such reproductive cloning taking place pending the Government's appeal in the Quintavalle case, especially given the length of the legal process that may be involved. I hope that the Government will further clarify their intentions should they fail in their action. The third reason is the need to bolster public confidence in bioscience in the United Kingdom. To undermine that is to damage our research and development.
  It is no secret that I personally oppose embryonic stem cell research in all its forms, but the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for those of us who seek to go further in that direction. If the Government lose the appeal, they will need substantial primary legislation to deal with many of the issues that have already been raised. For the sake of clarification, will the Minister give a firm commitment to take a full primary legislative approach to the issues raised in the debate? Many of us could not support the Government if we thought that they might renege on that promise.
  Ms Blears indicated assent.
  Dr. Fox: I take the Minister's nod as assent to my proposition.
  The Bill is at best a stop-gap measure, to use the term of Lord Hunt in the other place. Even if the Government win their appeal, it is obvious that many issues will remain to be tackled, so they will still need to introduce primary legislation.
  The intervention of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) was instructive. He mistakenly believed that the Government's change of definitions in the short Bill today would bring export and experimentation under the HFEA. The Minister pointed out that that would not be the case. That is one of the strongest arguments for further legislation, a useful model for which would be the procedure that we used for the Adoption and Children Bill. Substantial pre-legislative scrutiny of anything that the Government propose in this area would be useful because there is much expert knowledge that the House would like to draw on before we further debate these matters. If that is good enough for adoption legislation, it is certainly good enough for an important ethical matter such as this.
  We need clarity, definition and honesty from the Government in this debate. We also need to put the debate into the appropriate ethical perspective. In the other place, Lord Winston said:
  "it is my view that science—knowledge—does not have a moral dimension".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001: Vol. 629, c. 25.]
  All hon. Members believe that any application of knowledge has a moral dimension, and that we in the House have an absolute right to set the moral and ethical

  1171
  limits within which science in the United Kingdom is allowed to operate, and that any moral free-for-all, simply because science was capable of it, would be wholly unacceptable.
  There is another argument that needs to be tackled: many say that we should not stop such research in the United Kingdom because it will be undertaken elsewhere, and we should not put our science base at a disadvantage. The problem there is that we confuse globalisation with powerlessness. We can at least set proper ethical limits for our own country; the House of Commons is the appropriate place to do that.
  The Government's approach to much of this area has been sloppy and contradictory. I refer specifically to the debate on this subject on 15 December 2000, in which we received assurances from the Government about the state of the regulations that we were discussing. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said:
  "I turn to the issues surrounding cell nuclear replacement technique. Many have said that the regulations will open the door to human reproductive cloning. I cannot say more strongly that human reproductive cloning is illegal; it will stay illegal. The regulations do not permit it. They do not even permit research into it."—[Official Report, 15 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 883.]
  It is clear that the advice given to the House on that day was wrong. It is also clear that the Government did not believe it. If they did, why did, their manifesto state:
  "we will ban by law human cloning."
  If the Government already thought that that was illegal, why did they feel it necessary to introduce further legislation? That is a legitimate question for the House to ask because we have been given assurances by a Minister in the House of Commons. The Government got it wrong. When did they realise that the regulations that they had guaranteed would not allow cloning would in fact allow it? It is important to know that if we are to bolster confidence in the advice that the Government receive from their advisers.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the debate on human therapeutic cloning that took place several months ago, the Minister made clear her intention to introduce primary legislation at an early stage to ban human reproductive cloning?
  Dr. Fox: I refer again to Hansard. The Minister said that such cloning was
  "illegal; it will stay illegal. The regulations do not permit it."
  At some point between then and the publication of the Labour manifesto, the Government must have realised that that would not hold up in court. It would thus be helpful if the House could know when they realised that. Today, we are listening in good faith to specific legal advice given to the Government. If their legal advice on the issue was not watertight then, what faith can we have in it today? That is a reasonable point for the House to make to a Minister. Definitions are important.
  1172
  During that debate on the embryology regulations, we discussed another point that the Government need to tighten up: the definition of "serious disease". The Minister said:
  "Ultimately, it will be for the HFEA or the courts to interpret the term 'serious disease'."
  When asked for a better definition, because that would be required by the courts, the Minister said:
  "Clearly, the House will have its own view of what 'serious disease' means…It is not something that the HFEA and ultimately, the courts, if necessary, will have a serious problem in determining."—[Official Report, 15 December 2000; Vol. 359. c. 879–83.]
  The Government will have to draft much tighter legislation than they have done previously in that policy area. That is true of the Bill, but the point also applies much more to the necessary legislation that they will have to introduce whether or not they lose their appeal.
  There is a further question about the definition of embryos. Had the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 included a different definition, the Government would have probably won the Quintavalle case. That was clear from the judgment. However, I return to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley): why not simply amend the primary legislation? The Minister's answer was that speed was the issue and that the measure offered a speedy way to do that. However, she must already realise that trying to provide a speedy answer to the Government's dilemma has produced as many problems as are being solved by this method of blocking the loophole that we all want plugged. The Government should have considered that before they rushed out the Bill.
  Lynne Jones: When the Science and Technology Committee considered the matter, it decided that the 1990 Act was robust but that the definition of "embryo" should be amended. We recommended that it should include any manipulation of cells that results in an organism potentially capable of growing into a human. Such an amendment would have more successfully blocked all the loopholes than the Bill.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her expertise in the matter. She makes an important point: the Government should have given more thought to how they wanted to close the loophole. During my time as a Member, I have known the hon. Lady to be more robust than most in making her points to Ministers, so I shall endeavour to keep my comments as short as possible to ensure that she gets the opportunity to do so.
  Another reason given by the Government for rushing the measure through the House was the case of Professor Antinori and others—a point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). If the Government are speeding the Bill through to stop the professor and others who might want to rush to the UK to carry out this type of research, they should realise that the HFEA can already refuse a licence to anyone to store eggs for any research under the 1990 Act. I do not understand why that would not stop anyone who wanted to undertake research that the Government deemed unsavoury because of what that person had done elsewhere. A specific answer on that point would be most useful.

  1173
  Many of my hon. Friends have points to make, so this is my final comment. The Bill prevents only the implementation of CNR embryos. It does nothing to prevent widespread research, experimentation and even exportation. That is one of its biggest failures. Those of us who support the Government's aims are disappointed at the quality of the Bill and many of those who support their aims have grave doubts as to their competence and will require further legislation before our fears are laid to rest.
  4.28 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I intend to keep my comments brief, as I appreciate the lack of time that is constantly being mentioned and that many Opposition Members want to make important points. However, it is worth clarifying exactly what we are debating.
  As hon. Members can read in Hansard, it is clear from my contributions to the debates last December that I strongly support therapeutic cloning but, like probably all hon. Members, find reproductive cloning abhorrent. I made a detailed case for why we should allow therapeutic cloning, and I shall not rehearse those arguments today. However, I was reassured by the Minister's statement then that primary legislation would be introduced to outlaw reproductive cloning. That is what we are discussing today and I want to keep the two issues separate.
  Such legislation was promised, regardless of any High Court judgment but such a judgment has produced confusion in today's debate. Perhaps it is also the reason for the speed with which the measure has been introduced. However, such a measure would have been introduced at some time, and probably in much the same terms. There is no argument but that the Bill is necessary and that most hon. Members agree with that.
  Most hon. Members want the implantation into women of cloned embryos that could grow into human beings to be clearly outlawed. No one would argue about that, but confusion and much obfuscation has been caused by the fact that, two weeks ago, the High Court judgment cast doubt on the interpretation of what exactly constitutes an embryo, as defined by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
  I hope that the Government's appeal will be successful and that all the assurances that cloned embryos are covered by the 1990 Act that we were given when we considered the regulations to allow therapeutic cloning in December were correct. The appropriate time for the kind of detailed debate that we are having today will be when that appeal is determined. I hope that the Minister will ensure that, if the Government lose the appeal and it is necessary for them to propose further legislation to amend the 1990 Act, sufficient time will be allowed to discuss all the issues that hon. Members have consistently raised today.
  Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Lady accept that it has become clear in today's debates that, even if the Government win the appeal, the Bill will not cover many of the issues that hon. Members have raised and that further legislation will be necessary in any case?
  Miss Begg: We must await the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research before considering whether those issues are covered by the 1990
  1174
  Act. When we debated the issue in December, it was clear that the Government's legal advice was that the 1990 Act indeed covered all aspects of embryos created in this way. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said that if that were not the case, a simple amendment to the 1990 Act could be made. I do not know the Act in enough detail to say whether he is right that the definition of the word "embryo" could be changed in that way, although my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) suggests that that might be possible. If so, that is how the change should be made, and I hope that it will be that easy.
  Mr. Lansley: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall clarify my suggestion. I was suggesting not that a change should be made to the definition of the word "embryo" used in the 1990 Act, but that a specific prohibition should be introduced, such as that which exists on the placing into women of live embryos other than human embryos. Similarly, prohibiting the placing into women of embryos created otherwise than by fertilisation would deliver exactly the intention of the Government in the 1990 Act.
  Miss Begg: I understand the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Bill is unnecessary because changes could have been made by amending the 1990 Act. I would accept that point, but I felt, especially given the reassurances that the Minister gave in December, that we would introduce separate primary legislation, if necessary, because that was a matter of public confidence.
  There has been much reference today to the tabloid press determining what happens in the House, but the tabloid newspapers have had an effect on public opinion. I know from the discussions that I have had that there is much confusion about the issue, which is not helped by the way that the tabloid press has suggested that there will be lots of cloned individuals in future. The cartoons directed at the Government and our Prime Minister that appear not only in the tabloid but the quality press have helped give the impression that we are one step away from cloning lots of people in our own image. We find that abhorrent, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we must deal with that public confidence issue.
  I accept the need for separate primary legislation, such as that proposed in the Bill, to restore public confidence in scientists so that we can distinguish between human reproductive cloning, which we all find abhorrent, and human therapeutic cloning, which people, such as myself, think has great potential to do a huge amount of good, especially in fighting neurological degenerative diseases. That is why I hope that the rest of today's debate will focus on the Bill, not on the interpretation of the 1990 Act, which should be considered if the Government lose the appeal that is currently before the courts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak is right that such legislation is urgent and important, but the Government cannot introduce it until the legal position is settled. That will happen only when the appeal has been heard and a final decision taken, so I accept the Government's position on that issue. However, as I have already suggested to the Minister, such issues need to be properly aired if the appeal is lost, and we must then ensure that the legislation is leak-proof. I appeal to the House to concentrate on the Bill because we all agree that it is wrong for scientists to embark on human reproductive

  1175
  cloning. Please let us debate that issue, because that is what we must outlaw, and we must not take our eye off the ball.
  4.36 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: I should first like to explain that there will be a free vote for Liberal Democrats on this issue, as did the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) from the Conservative Front Bench. The Liberal Democrats have always thought that such matters should be subject to a free vote, so our Whips do not compel us to turn up, or to vote one way or the other. However, the party does debate such matters, has policies on them and advises Liberal Democrat Members on how they should vote if they wish to follow the conference policy. Nevertheless, we recognise that this is a matter of conscience for individual Members. Although I speak from the Front Bench and have strong views on pro-life and pro-choice issues and reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning, I take pains to make it clear to colleagues that they are by no means bound by what I have to say about our policies.
  I agree with a further, clear statutory separate ban on human reproductive cloning, and have done so for some time. That was my view well before last year's debates, because the Liberal Democrats had said that we wanted such a separate definitive ban. In that respect, it will be difficult for me to oppose the Bill on Second Reading, and I shall certainly support it on Third Reading, because we agree with it. However, we are concerned about the way in which the Government have gone about the issue. We are concerned about what is not in the Bill, rather than what is in it. Indeed, I find that I share a viewpoint with people who take an opposite point of view from me on the legitimacy of therapeutic cloning and on whether embryos should be used at all. I do not find that difficult or embarrassing. We cannot choose our allies in any parliamentary debate, and it is not reasonable to say that we should not take a view in case we find that we have allies that we previously did not have.
  Many reasonable concerns have been raised by those whom I shall call the pro-life lobby. I do not use that term in a negative nor, indeed, a positive way because I suspect that, in many cases, they are not necessarily pro-life. However, I do not believe that their concern that the Bill does not include measures further to restrict therapeutic cloning is reasonable. That is one of the reasons why I cannot support the reasoned amendment, under which the Bill would not be given a Second Reading because it does not reopen the issue of therapeutic cloning.
  We had lengthy debates in the House last year. Indeed, many hon. Members who took part in those excellent debates are present. There were lengthy debates on the issue in the House of Lords, and there was extensive coverage of the issue. As I said at the time, I regret that those debates were not on amendable legislation. They were on regulations or were held under an Adjournment motion. Substantive amendments would have focused the debates. Nevertheless, I believe that this House and the House of Lords have given a view on the matter by large majorities, although the House of Lords did so with the caveat that a Select Committee should be set up.
  The Select Committee has taken extensive evidence and, by all accounts, has done its work extremely thoroughly. It is due to report shortly. People on both
  1176
  sides of the question should reasonably expect any recommendations that the Committee makes to be the subject of separate legislation. I am positively hostile to the view that this Bill—which is designed to close, however unsatisfactorily the loophole created by the judgment three weeks ago—should seek to reopen other issues.
  I wish to say something positive about the Bill on Second Reading, and I shall do so. When we pass the Bill, as I suspect that we will, and it becomes an Act, it will strengthen the position of those of us, including those on the Government Front Bench and many Members in all parties, who support the principle of research being allowed to be carried out on early embryos that are obtained from both fertilisation and from cell nuclear replacement. That will assist research into cures for serious diseases.
  That is not what are debating today, but one of the arguments against the position that the Government and I take is that there is a slippery slope that leads inevitably to human reproductive cloning. The fact that this Bill draws a line in the sand undermines that argument. I would not have accepted that argument in any event, but I hope that the Bill will persuade people that it is possible to legislate for limits and that one can delineate and debate appropriate regulations on embryos short of the abomination that is represented by human reproductive cloning.
  Mr. Cash: In the light of the earlier debate, will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he is in favour of other therapeutic research but appears not to disagree with me when I say that stem cell research provides an alternative when it involves adults rather than embryos? With his qualifications as a distinguished doctor, will he answer that question?
  Dr. Harris: In the main, I speak without using those qualifications. One does not need to have medical qualifications to debate this issue, as the hon. Gentleman has done expertly.
  Although the subject that the hon. Gentleman raised probably falls within the remit of Second Reading, I am not keen to go into it, except to say that, assuming that the Government win the appeal, the regulations that were passed made it clear that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will not offer a licence for stem cell work on embryos—whether through fertilisation or by cell nuclear replacement—if there appears to be an alternative that does not involve the use of embryos. I share the view that this and previous Governments have taken since the Warnock committee reported—that embryos have a special status. Although that does not give them complete protection when there are therapeutic benefits to be had from their use at an early stage, their use should be avoided if at all possible.
  Allowing embryonic stem cell research—when there is no alternative—and adult stem cell research to go together will enable us to ensure that we get the best research. I think that everyone's hope is that therapies will, in the end, be based on adult stem cells, because they will be easier to obtain in some cases. We will not be faced with the shortage of eggs that might limit the supply of tissue for transplantation. The general scientific view is that we need the research from embryonic stem cells to inform

  1177
  research on stem cells of all kinds. This is not the time to go into that debate in detail, but I hope that we shall have the opportunity to do so in the future. The House should consider that subject regularly. When the House of Lords Select Committee reports and when the Government introduce other legislation—as they will have to do to implement the Donaldson report recommendations that they have not yet implemented—that debate will take place. I welcome the opportunity to have that debate, but I fear that the Government do not. That is why they often appear so unwilling to discuss the issues.
  The Bill shows that a line can clearly be drawn. The second argument in its favour is that it will restore public confidence. In the debate on the timetable motion, I asked whether it was appropriate to assume that there is no public confidence on the basis of some adverse media coverage of a judgment. I asked whether introducing legislation that is not as complete as it might have been and that has not been consulted on as widely as it might be does restore public confidence or, rather, provides momentum to those in the public and the media who feel that the Government do not have a grip on the situation. The fact that we are debating an emergency Bill in one day sends the signal that there is a problem here. That would not have happened if the Government had approached the issue in a more measured way.
  The third argument for the Bill is that there is the real and present danger of the implantation of a cloned embryo into a woman with a view to human reproductive cloning. That view has been expressed by Conservative Members, but I do not believe that a real and present danger exists. For it to be possible, there would have to be a reliable way of producing a human embryo from cell nuclear replacement, and there is not. First, even the news from America in the past week suggests that there is not a reliable way of getting an embryo to the stage where it continues to develop into a blastocyst. The case developed by Advanced Cell Technology was a pre-blastocyst human embryo.
  Secondly, an Italian self-publicist would have to find collaborators in this country to carry out such work. As Lord Winston said in the House of Lords debate—I paraphrase him—someone who had a licence in this country to do the work regulated by the HEFA would be working outside that licence if he did such work with Professor Antinori. The fact that, since 1990, no one working in the field has lost their licence shows just how seriously they take their obligations under the existing law.
  Thirdly, I do not believe that eggs are easily available to do such work. The storage of eggs for the creation of cloned embryos is still covered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Therefore, this Bill is not required to stop those eggs being used; the law already exists for that. Fourthly, I do not believe that Professor Antinori would find a medical doctor, as opposed to a scientist, who is willing to get involved with the process of implanting such an embryo into a woman with a view to making her pregnant, let alone find a woman prepared to accept the significant risks of miscarriage and worse that such a procedure involves.
  Putting all those factors together, it seems to me that there is no realistic prospect—not even a possibility that the Government might feel that they should legislate for—of that happening within the time scale of considered legislation or an appeal. The fact that an Italian
  1178
  self-publicist has been wholly unregulated in Italy—there is no regulation there—and has not been able to make any progress towards his desired aims provides further evidence of the fact that he is publicising himself rather than significant work. On that basis, the Government did not need to bring us to this stage.
  Should we be here at all? Despite the advice that the Government received, should they have predicted that they would lose the High Court judgment? When we discussed the matter previously, I did not take issue with the legal advice—I do not claim the advantage of foresight. Although it was not the main topic of our discussion, I want to be honest and admit that I cannot say, "I told you so." However, others can. Apart from the reason that I raised in the discussion on the timetable motion, it is worth briefly exploring others for why it seemed unlikely, in retrospect, that the Government could win. Some of those reasons may give them pause on appeal.
  Section 1(1)(a) of the 1990 Act states:
  "In this Act, except where otherwise stated"—
  I emphasise those last four words—
  "embryo means a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete".
  I rely on the work of Mr. Lee and Mr. Morgan in their book on the subject, but the words that I have emphasised make it clear that the Government could have provided for the inclusion in the statute of embryos created other than through IVF. However, they did not.
  To read the Act as providing for embryos created through cell nuclear replacement, we must take "embryo" to mean
  "a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete"
  unless the context requires otherwise. However, the Act does not provide for that. The Act uses the words "except where otherwise stated", but omits to "state otherwise." That makes it more difficult for a judge to give "embryo" a purposive rather than a literal interpretation. I fear that the Government may run into trouble on appeal. I hope that they are taking wider advice on whether the appeal is winnable than the counsel's opinion that they took originally.
  Mr. Lansley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, to complete the picture of the intentions in the 1990 Act, we must consider section 3(3)(d)? In terms of the available technology at the time, it was intended to prohibit the authorisation through licensing of cell nuclear replacement. The potential to develop an embryo in utero from a single cell was not contemplated then. That possibility is now being contemplated.
  Dr. Harris: The Government's representations to Mr. Justice Crane on section 3(3)(d) were successful. The applicant would not have won on that basis alone. However, section 3(3)(d) referred to what is described as Warnock cloning: the replacement of a nucleus of an embryo, not an egg, by another cell or nucleus. In 1990, the Dolly method was not in the minds of legislators or experts. Perhaps a few scientists had thought of it then. That is another reason why judges would find it difficult to interpret "embryo" purposively. However, we are getting into the nitty gritty, and it is inappropriate to go much further.

  1179
  I ask the Minister to address the appeal in her concluding remarks tonight. In an intervention, I tried to establish the position if the Government win the appeal but the Appeal Court judges give the applicant leave and even encouragement to appeal to the House of Lords. The Government claim that they have received similar encouragement from the judgment because they have been told that they have a strong case to take to the Court of Appeal.
  If the Government win the appeal, but the applicant has leave to appeal to the House of Lords, will they wait for the House of Lords to rule, or will they get on with introducing measures to implement the recommendations of the Donaldson report and, if there are any, of the Select Committee? Will they wait until the result of the appeal before clarifying the position because they may not, understandably, want to revert to the subject for a third time?
  If, however, the Government lose the appeal, but go to the House of Lords, will they decide to wait another six months or more before legislating to close the remainder of the loophole? There is probably a further stage under the Human Rights Act 1998 for the applicant, if not for the Government. We must be clear about that because many of us who have reservations about the Government's actions anticipate a more rapid conclusion to the matter.
  Another problem has been mentioned already. The Bill does not close the entire loophole that the judgment created. All the protections of the embryo that were lost for a cloned embryo have not been restored. They are: protection against exports and subsequent use that would be not be countenanced in this country; implantation in animals; and experimentation beyond 14 days. We must remember and analyse the reasons for the protections in the 1990 Act. The House deemed it appropriate to give embryos special consideration and a status worthy of protection. It is that class of embryos—cloned ones—that lost its protection as a result of the judgment. It is surprising, therefore, that the Government did not attempt, or consult on whether they could make an attempt, to introduce legislation not only to do what this Bill does within its limited ambit, which it does quite well, but to introduce further protections.
  As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) also touched on this in her speech, which was, once again, clear and helpful—it should have been conceivable to reverse the effect of the judgment by amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. In conversations with people who say that they know, I have been told that that is an extensive job, although it is hard to understand why when one reads the Act because the judgment is limited to one or two clauses. It would help hon. Members if the Minister placed in the Library a note describing the other sections and schedules of the Act that would have to be amended were that approach taken. Her argument is not convincing without seeing the extent of the change that would be necessary.
  The main problem is that because the Government have produced a limited measure, it looks as though they have introduced it to protect themselves from embarrassment by Italian mavericks rather than to protect embryos, which
  1180
  deserve protection because of their special status. Those of us who defended the Government's position on therapeutic cloning by recognising that the 14-day limit and the ban on the implantation into animals were important safeguards feel undermined by their decision to close only some of the loopholes.
  We also need to consider further legislation, which was dealt with to an extent by the hon. Member for Woodspring. Some of the recommendations of the Donaldson committee report may require primary legislation, specifically to beef up the consent provisions, which in part relate to the consent of the donor of the nucleus that provides the DNA in cloning technologies. We also have to consider what regulation and bodies, if any, are necessary to regulate stem cell lines derived from embryo research.
  The Donaldson committee also recommended banning the mixing of adult cells and live egg cells from animals, which is already being researched outside this country. Perhaps the Minister will consider doing something about that. In addition, the Government tried to get a private Member's Bill on to the statute book to deal with the Blood case at the very end of the last Session. They were unsuccessful, partly because there was not enough time to discuss it. The Government will have to tackle those problems.
  The Government's defence of their approach is that they wanted to introduce such a measure at an early stage, but it is clear that they are now responding outwith their preferred timetable. It would help hon. Members who have sympathy with the Government's position but concerns about procedure if they could be clearer about their plans for future legislation.
  I endorse what the hon. Member for Woodspring said: we need better scrutiny. He thought that an approach, such as that taken towards the Adoption and Children Bill, might help. I assume that he meant referring the legislation to a Special Standing Committee rather than letting it run out of time before a general election. It might be appropriate, even before the appeal is heard, to produce a draft Bill so that we can see what direction the Government are taking. Further legislation will be required and they should provide information on what changes we can expect, whether they win or lose the appeal.
  4.59 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: A rather arrogant Cambridge molecular biologist, following the discovery of the DNA genetic code in 1960, said:
  "Give me DNA and I will make you a man".
  There is an element of that in the debate on cloning a human being. Attempting to achieve the birth of a person who, at least in theory, has the same genetic make-up as another person, dead or alive, is a reflection of an arrogant position.
  As I said in a recent Adjournment debate, it is an unsafe and unethical science. The technology that led to Dolly the sheep was unsuccessful in 277 previous cases. Imagine the trauma if that were to happen with humans. It is not only irreconcilable with the ethics of society as a whole, but with the ethics of good science and good medicine, to subject women and their children to those odds. The technology is immature and imprecise. In animals, it has led to lethargy, obesity, arthritic

  1181
  conditions, failed sexual prowess, miscarriages, abortions, still births and genetically defective offspring. It is a dangerous science.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the science being a dangerous and unsafe way of cloning for humans. The Advanced Cell Technology company's research of the last few days in the United States involved significantly high numbers of failures in early attempts at cloning. That has not been taken into account, with the press saying that we are about to be able to clone human beings.
  Dr. Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
  I have no doubt that in the fullness of time somebody will want to carry out the process. As science moves on, ambitious people will want to do that. There is the hope of making a person who has the same genetics as somebody else. That is a person who might look, feel or even behave in exactly the same way as the person contributing the DNA.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's points about the science being immature and wholly untested, does he agree that even if the science were to improve and if we were able to implement it, it would still be the wrong thing to do?
  Dr. Gibson: I agree. I shall come on to ethics and morality, despite the scientific prowess of those who might be involved.
  I thought that I could hear the call from a football ground not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister: "There's only one David Beckham." If the technique that we are discussing were to arrive on the scene, there would be two David Beckhams. That might satisfy the current manager. I envisage many people imagining and talking about that.
  My view is that there will never be an exact replica. The environmental effects on gene activity and interaction are unknown entities. There are even differences between identical twins that are spottable. However, we are asked whether it can be done, and many reasons will be put forward to persuade others that the science can be achieved, not least by charlatans like the Italian professor, Antinori.
  Many people say that in 1990 the technology used to produce Dolly the sheep was not contemplated, but it had been tried and tested in animals in the 1960s. The science had been carried out with frogs at Indiana university and by John Gurdon at Oxford university. It had also been carried out with insects. In laboratories throughout the world people asked—of course they did, it is in the nature of science to do so—"Would it work in human beings?" That is what science is all about.
  Current Nobel prize winners in Britain, Paul Nurse and Tim Hunt, asked, "If we worked in a lower organism like yeast, would that have any implications for our knowledge of cancer?" No wonder they received a Nobel prize. That seeking after an understanding of genes and how they work led to discovery. As I have said, to ask such questions is the nature of science. The question whether it would be possible to use the science for humans was
  1182
  certainly asked in the 1960s. There are real lessons for legislators in our efforts to keep up with scientific progress.
  About a year ago, we debated here and elsewhere the science, the practicalities and the morality of stem cell research, using cell nuclear replacement, which is also called therapeutic cloning. The Opposition sought to confuse the issue by embroiling us in a nonsensical debate about adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells, but the Government achieved a vast majority in both Houses in favour of therapeutic cloning.
  The argument was that we needed to undertake both adult and embryonic stem cell research to bring about a deeper understanding of how to take forward the creation of tissues that might be helpful for various diseases. Therapeutic cloning, in my opinion, will never seek to create an individual human being. It seeks to create cells and tissues that might one day be used for the treatment of severe, chronic and degenerative diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Everyone who accepts that there is a difference between people and embryos at the first stages of development—embryos are pin size, consisting of 16 cells—must accept that there is a moral difference between so-called therapeutic and reproductive cloning.
  I know that there are some who say that a very early embryo and a live birth should have the same moral status. This week, I had an altercation with a religious source on BBC Radio Scotland. It was in the middle of a game with a parliamentary football team at the Charlton stadium. I managed to extricate myself from the match to have a vicious argument. He argued that it has been shown scientifically that early embryos and people are morally the same. We know that a minority take that position in the House and other places but that has not been reflected in the laws of this country. My opponent's view contradicts our laws on contraception and abortion and the 1990 Act itself. The court action of the minority, which we have heard about today, is part of a plan to stop the cloning of human embryonic cells for whatever purpose, including promising research, and undermine embryo research in general; it is part of a continued attack on abortion rights. Ironically and sadly, the minority's court action has achieved the opposite of their aim. The cloned embryo is less protected now than it was before the decision of Mr. Justice Crane.
  The Government rightly reject the proclaimed aim of the so-called pro-life lobby to ban promising and tightly regulated research on embryos. They are appealing against the decision this month and I hope, if the appeal is successful—we should all back it, no matter where we stand on the issue—embryos created through cell nuclear replacement will be protected and regulated by the 1990 Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, just like embryos created through fertilisation involving sperm and egg. If the appeal fails, I am assured by Lord Hunt in another place and the Minister that the Government will not hesitate to follow up this narrow and precise Bill with a more comprehensive legislative response to the challenges created by the rapid advances

  1183
  in the science of embryo research. The 1990 Act will then be extended to embryos created by means other than fertilisation of an egg with a sperm cell.
  Andrew Selous: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that life begins at conception, at what point does he believes that it does begin?
  Dr. Gibson: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman and I will contemplate the matter and argue about it for the rest of our lives, as has happened between people throughout the country who can never agree. Indeed, as I shall discuss later, I chaired a meeting at which Chief Rabbi Sacks gave a talk; he said that there is no special boundary between the point when life starts and the point when it does not; it is impossible to define. I have great respect for that view. Dr. Sacks said that one could tell where Scotland and England began, but one could not do the same with life; there was no precise way of doing so—[Interruption.] I shall give way—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman that it is never a good idea to tout for business.
  Dr. Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that I have business.
  Miss Widdecombe: I cannot resist an invitation from the hon. Gentleman which, in fact, I did not request. I was saying, perhaps improperly from a sedentary position, that if one says that there is no boundary nevertheless legislation requires precise definitions. We would start with conception; the hon. Gentleman would not. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was asking what the hon. Gentleman would regard as an acceptable starting point for law.
  Dr. Gibson: We are not talking about conception in the Bill but a new technique, which raises the question of the development of an embryo at a certain stage when stem cells are taken. Arguments about other issues have been made and the 1990 Act gives a firm definition of where life starts, as the right hon. Lady knows full well.
  There has been much speculation about the adequacy of the Bill to prevent the cloning of people. The debate has included some hair-raising stories and scenarios: we have heard about artificial wombs, human-animal hybrids, the export of cloned embryos and so on. Those stories are confusing, but I also get the impression that they are told with the intention of confusing the issue. We know clearly what the Government are trying to achieve and what scientists are capable of doing at this moment in time.
  The Government have declared that they are willing to bring the use of cloned embryos under the remit of the 1990 Act, as we all intended to do earlier this year. That will mean that all the issues of animal transfer, hybridisation and export will be regulated through the strict and transparent rule of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. If the Government win their appeal, that will become law; if they lose, they have said quite clearly that they will introduce further legislation. The 1990 Act establishes the HFEA as the ideal framework to react flexibly yet critically to any further
  1184
  developments in reproductive science or medicine. Believe me, there will be much in that field over the next few years. Just as a single plant cell can be taken and grown into a plant, one day it might be possible to take a single cell from an individual and grow another individual. That might be a possibility, but we are a long way from doing it, and many people would ask why anyone would want to do it, anyway.
  The Bill, rightly, does not address therapeutic cloning. Let us see what happens in the Court of Appeal, and after the House of Lords Select Committee has reported. Let us see whether further legislation is needed. There are interactions between the Bishop of Oxford and others of us. He is the Chair of the Committee in the other place, and we are discussing the issues. We will interact with Government when legislation is necessary, if it is necessary after the court case.
  I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that it is vital that cell nuclear replacement research goes on in order to contribute to treatments for many incurable diseases. The Bill would outlaw reproductive cloning—
  Dr. John Pugh: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is making a moral distinction between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, but does he accept that the technologies that will develop for therapeutic cloning will at any rate make more probable the prospect of effective reproductive cloning?
  Dr. Gibson: Intellectually, that would be the case, but if laws and regulations are in place and the public are opposed to reproductive cloning, we can ensure that we go along 'with what the public want, not with what some crazy scientist might want to do. Many scientific creations are possible, as we are finding, but they must be beneficial and for peaceful purposes. That is our aim, and the aim of legislation. Cloned individuals are unacceptable to the public, and are opposed also in Europe and the United States and by UNESCO.
  At the meeting with Jonathan Sacks the other week, to which I referred, he made an extremely pertinent point. He said that every child has the right to be an ultimate surprise to his or her parents. That is a very good way of putting it, and a strong argument against the cloning of people. That element of surprise, that uncontrollability—especially of children—implies a degree of respect for difference. By having children, we create something that we cannot always control. We must be mentally ready for children who turn out differently, different from us and from each other. That is what makes us human beings.
  Scientists must acknowledge that concern for human diversity, freedom and dignity leads to the principled rejection of reproductive cloning. If scientists do not clearly distance themselves from the likes of Antinori and his narcissistic and over-ambitious experiments, they risk aggravating a situation that is characterised by a public loss of trust in science and expertise.
  The clear ban on reproductive cloning proposed in the Bill can serve as an assurance to the public that there is a moral, ethical and practical difference between cell nuclear replacement research and cloning babies, and that while British scientists pursue promising research using very early embryos, they are not in the business of cloning people.
  With scientists in the US and Italy ready to exploit commercially the false hopes and dreams of individuals, it is necessary to act today. There will, of course, be ways

  1185
  of getting around any law—for example, by moving to other countries and by means of other illegalities—but we take precautions and amend Acts to ensure that that does not happen. Those who have studied industrial health and safety know that when the legal going gets tough in one country, the pharmaceutical industry and the asbestos industry, for example, move to another country. We legislate to make that difficult.
  We have a long way to go, not least by engaging with international institutions to achieve legal co-operation and better regulation of science. I am convinced that the Government are correct to make a start today and to be ready for further necessary legal action in the future. It will restore confidence in science and medicine among our scientific community, as well as among the public at large.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill because it does not address the subject of therapeutic cloning; it does not prevent the creation of embryos by cell nuclear replacement; it does not define terms central to the Bill, such as 'fertilisation' and 'embryo'; and it fails to address the wider issues raised by the prospect of the creation of a cloned human being."
  It is our intention to press the reasoned amendment to a Division to enable the House to come to some sort of conclusion on these matters. We accept that we will be a minority in that Division, so it would have been a useful exercise for us, if we had had time, to move on to a detailed Committee stage and consider all the amendments that have been tabled. However, the wholly inadequate time that is available means that that will almost certainly not be possible. Therefore, the only opportunity that the House will have to express a view on these matters arises in relation to this very generalised reasoned amendment. That is a matter of grave concern. Of course, those important points have already been made in some detail during discussion of the programme motion, but they need to be stressed.
  Miss Begg: Can I be absolutely clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying through his reasoned amendment? Is he saying that those who support it will be voting against the outlawing of reproductive cloning?
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Lady should consider what the reasoned amendment says. The intention is simple and relates to a point that has been made by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. These are very complex matters and it is almost certain that the House will have to return to them. Our basic point is that, from whatever side of the argument one speaks, and whether or not the Government win their court case, it is right and necessary to have primary legislation that covers all aspects of therapeutic and human cloning. That is not what the Government are providing. They are rushing through legislation in haste and repeating the mistakes that they made in December last year and January this year, when unamendable regulations were rushed through Parliament to extend the purposes of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Last week, as we know, the regulations were judged to be defective. If
  1186
  anybody thinks that we should believe what Ministers tell us, we should remember what the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), told us at that stage. She said:
  "Let me make very clear the Government's position on this matter. Human reproductive cloning is illegal. It must stay illegal. Under these regulations it will stay illegal. These regulations have nothing to do with human reproductive cloning."—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 220.]
  The Opposition believe that we are now repeating those mistakes. The purpose of the reasoned amendment is to try to persuade the House and the Government to make a serious attempt at introducing primary legislation to deal with all these matters. Yet, rather than introduce such legislation to deal with experimental and live birth cloning and bring them within the purview of the 1990 Act, the Government intend to prohibit only the latter and to leave the former completely unregulated. Despite the decisiveness of the recent High Court judgment, and having been forewarned that experimental cloning is not currently subject to regulation by ourselves and others, they now seek to pursue their court case. As I said, it is almost certain that we will have to return to this subject at a later date in any event. How much better it would have been to have had the opportunity for mature reflection and careful consideration.
  Dr. Stoate: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the reasoned amendment were to persuade the House to refuse the Bill its Second Reading, it would give succour to those who want to continue with reproductive cloning, as it would allow them to exploit the current legal loophole?
  Mr. Leigh: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not know how much of the debate he has taken in. All hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have pretty well established that it is extremely unlikely that anybody will engage in human cloning this week, next week or next month. It is not going to happen and is not technically possible. The cells, facilities and all the rest of it could not be found. The fact is that there is time to consider these matters seriously. All hon. Members are opposed to human cloning. That is not what the debate is about. Everybody here should be seeking to frame legislation to ensure that various problems are addressed. The Minister has sought to wave those problems away, but they are serious.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer that I received earlier from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) illustrated the real problem that we face and that my hon. Friend is so expertly explaining now? It is absolutely clear that in the absence of a full-blown Select Committee to investigate all the questions that are arising, report to the House and produce proper definitions, it will be impossible for the Government to introduce legislation. Indeed, the Minister's comments made it clear that she was unable to give a clear answer on the legal definitions. Would it not have been a good idea to have placed in the Library of the House the legal opinion that was produced?
  Mr. Leigh: Why cannot we just try to deal with these difficult matters, which give rise to serious moral, ethical and medical concerns? We do not have to deal with them

  1187
  in this confrontational way. We could deal with them through proper pre-legislative scrutiny, and by appointing a Select Committee and calling expert witnesses before us. There is time to do that. It is accepted on both sides of the House that we are going to have to return to the subject anyway, whatever the result of the court case. Given the debacle of the debate on the regulations, and of the Government losing their court case, and given that the Government have already had their fingers burned in this matter, would it not have been better for them to proceed in the way that I am suggesting?
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that no one in the House is advocating human reproductive cloning? That is the will of the House. If the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 had to come back to the House, would he respect the fact that the House had previously endorsed the purposes of the amendments that were introduced to allow cell nuclear replacement?
  Mr. Leigh: Of course I respect the will of the House. Some of us are opposed to therapeutic cloning, but we respect the will of the House and we know that we are in a minority on that issue. All that we are trying to do now is to get legislation that works and closes all the loopholes, which is surely a perfectly sensible thing for Members of Parliament to do. If I am given a moment, I shall try to outline some of those loopholes, but before I do so I had better give way.
  Glenda Jackson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is arguing for the abolition of judicial review, if what he desires is legislation on which, if any group were to test it in court, a judge would automatically find for the Government. I find that ironic, given that hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued, in relation to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, that the issue of judicial review is vital to our basic civil liberties and human rights.
  Mr. Leigh: Of course, we all accept that judges have the right to interpret legislation. The problem with the way in which the Government addressed this matter through unamendable regulation is that the provisions were completely unenforceable. The problem is that it might not just be a question of a judge dealing with an aspect of this legislation in six months or a year's time; a judge might completely sink it, or ensure that it has no effect whatsoever in a whole area of research. We should be concerned about that.
  I shall attempt briefly to deal with some of these problems, because, although they have been mentioned by the Minister, they have been dismissed with a wave of the hand. The Bill leaves the cloning of human embryos completely unregulated. Of course it will prevent implantation; we know that. It is a short Bill, and that is quite clear.
  Miss Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I would like to try to develop my argument, and the hon. Lady has already intervened.
  People can create—or attempt to create—cloned embryos, experiment on them and keep them for as long as they like. They Government claim that they will appeal
  1188
  against the judgment, but for the time being, the law is as Mr. Justice Crane declared it to be. The fact that the Bill deals with implantation does not address the central problem that it leaves the cloning of human embryos completely unregulated.
  Other points were mentioned, and the Minister responded that they could be returned to if the court case were lost. That is not good enough. We cannot have hypothetical situations when we are dealing with primary legislation. The fact is that cloned embryos can be implanted into animals. The Bill prohibits only the placing of embryos into women. This is not some kind of esoteric matter that nobody has thought of and might never happen. It goes to the heart of the Bill.
  In the early days of IVF, Professor Robert Edwards, the creator of the first test-tube baby, conducted experiments implanting human embryos into rabbits and sheep. As a result of that, Parliament placed a ban on placing fertilised embryos into animals. That ban does not extend to cloned embryos. This is a serious point, and if we are going to have sensible legislation to deal with the matter, we should address it.
  Professor Winston in the other place claimed that embryos could be implanted in men. The Bill would not prevent it, but the Government wave that aside, saying that it is not likely to happen and that we can return to it, but we should at least discuss the matter, if we have time to debate the Bill in Committee. The point has been made several times that cloned embryos could be exported for implantation. The Bill would not prohibit that. A clone could easily be created in the UK, then exported for implantation. The Bill would not prevent that. Again, a gaping loophole could defeat the purposes of the Bill.
  Clones could be kept alive in artificial wombs. That is known as ectogenesis and the 14-day limit imposed by Parliament was meant to prevent it.
  Miss Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I must make progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Lady, as I know she is anxious to get in. She has a particular interest in the Bill.
  Last year in Japan, researchers managed to gestate goat embryos for several months in artificial wombs. That is not an entirely esoteric point; it is happening in the research world. Clones could be kept alive in artificial wombs. Again, the Bill is silent, as it is on all those matters, because the Government think that they must produce as simple a Bill as possible, get it through the House in a day and draw it as tightly as possible so that it cannot be amended. That makes for a circular argument, which is fine for those in charge of the Government timetable, but altogether more worrying for people who work in this field and want serious legislation covering all those points.
  Allowing the creation of cloned embryos will pave the way for live-birth cloning. Once cloned embryos are created, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, they will be implanted in a woman, especially if no restrictions are put on creating or storing cloned embryos. A survey of all the leading IVF practitioners was conducted by The Independent, and the majority recognised that live-birth cloning is inevitable once the creation of cloned embryos is allowed. The Government's failure to control the

  1189
  creation and storage of cloned embryos is extremely irresponsible and the ban on implantation, which is the centrepiece of the Bill, will be impossible to police.
  Ministers often come to the House with such legislation, assuming that it will be policed properly, but let us study it for a moment. In the laboratory, there is no effective way to distinguish between cloned and normally fertilised embryos. As the creation of cloned embryos is unregulated, clinics could store cloned embryos next to fertilised ones and no one could tell the difference, but the Government say, "Don't worry. Legislation will cure the problem." I doubt it.
  Once a clone has been implanted, no one will be able to tell the difference. Even after birth, it will be possible to establish that a clone has been created only if it is known whose genetic material was used to create the clone and if it were possible to force that person and the clone to undergo genetic testing. That will not happen, so let us discuss a case that did happen.
  Late last year, a week after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority inspected a clinic in Basingstoke, approving its facilities and procedures, it was discovered that dozens of embryos had been mixed up or gone missing. As many as 80 women had the wrong embryos implanted. Criminal prosecutions are occurring. In the early 1990s, the first case of the wrong embryos being implanted was reported. Two patients had their embryos mixed up. By the HFEA's own admission, there are huge errors recorded in the collection of basic data.
  My point is that the Bill is impossible to police and this is vital: the failure to define the terms "fertilisation" and "embryo" leaves it full of loopholes. We have tabled amendments to define those terms and, if we have a debate in Committee, we would like to discuss them. Neither term is defined, yet that was precisely the problem with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and it is why were are having the debate today. It is also one reason for the court case being brought and for the ProLife Alliance winning its judicial review.
  One cannot say, "We don't agree with the ProLife Alliance. It caused the problem." Surely those drafting legislation and bringing it to the House must assume that it is reasonably watertight. In this Bill—a very short Bill, which deals with a huge, complex, difficult area—no attempt has been made to define its basis. That is extraordinary. Those who think—if anyone holds such a view—that lawyers will not have a field day are fooling themselves.
  Members who imagine that this is just my opinion should bear in mind what Lord Winston said in the other place. I shall paraphrase: Lord Winston said that fertilisation was impossible to define, and could encompass a variety of techniques.
  Parthenogenesis is one of the cloning procedures undertaken by Mike West of Advanced Cell Technology. He was featured in the newspapers earlier this week, having cloned the world's first embryonic human being—or so he claimed.
  The Bill would not prevent the implanting of cloned embryos created by techniques described as fertilisation. That was Lord Winston's point. It should be borne in mind that this is a criminal Bill, in that those who breach its provisions could be sent to prison for a long time. If a case is brought, the benefit of the doubt will lie with the defendant. If the defendant demonstrates that his cloning
  1190
  technique could be described as fertilisation in Lord Winston's terms, he will be able to avoid criminal sanctions.
  I should have thought that those wishing to avoid the possibility of defendants driving a coach and horses through their legislation, which would defeat the whole object of that legislation, would want to define their terms. Surely that would he reasonably sensible. No attempt has been made to define the terms, however, because the Government's central and overriding aim is to enact some sort of legislation, however imprecise and ineffective it may be. That is very dangerous. It might result in legislation that could not be enforced, and could not make a successful prosecution possible.
  It has been suggested that the Bill may prevent the use of certain established fertility techniques. One is intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection—ICSI. I shall not go into details, but concerns have been raised about it. Furthermore, the Bill fails to define the term "embryo". I have considered the definition of "fertilisation", but the definition of "embryo" is particularly important, because we are seeking to base a whole body of legislation on it. The definition of a one-celled product has been discussed. Mr. Justice Crane agreed with the Government on that, stating that if he had found in their favour a one-celled clone would still not be an embryo. Thus the Bill does not prevent the placing of a one-celled clone in a woman. The Minister brushed that aside, but I think that we should deal with it.
  The HFEA has itself subscribed to the view that, until 14 days have elapsed, the product of fertilisation is not an embryo but, rather, a pre-embryo. It is possible, therefore, that the Bill does not prevent the placing in a woman of what some term a pre-embryo. I should have thought that that was an important point—and an interesting loophole.
  Just as the Bill makes no attempt to define when the embryo stage begins, it makes no attempt to define when it ends. At some point in the embryo's development it becomes a foetus, but neither the Bill nor the 1990 Act identifies that point. That is a serious lacuna in the Bill.
  Is a totipotent embryonic stem cell an embryo? If so, is it covered by the Bill? Fully grown mice and cows have been developed from mouse and cow embryonic stem cells—but, again, the Bill is silent on the matter.
  Even if the Government win their appeal, serious problems may arise in all the areas that I have mentioned. We need to frame legislation so that it can cover all those problems, and enable us to fulfil the declared wish of the House to ban human cloning in any shape or form. We need to close all the loopholes, effectively and sensibly. The Bill does not do that, and I therefore urge the House to accept the amendment.
  5.35 pm
  Jim Dobbin: I did not speak to the programme motion, but I voted on it, and my feelings were recorded in that vote. As most hon. Members know, I speak from a pro-life stance. However, as I am also diabetic, a bit of my mind and perhaps the whole of my body want to see medical advances for the right reasons, and for some very personal reasons.
  This is an extremely important Bill; Bills do not come any higher on the ethical, moral or scientific scale for the whole of humanity. However, like many hon. Members, I

  1191
  feel that the Bill has been presented with tremendous haste and without the detailed consideration that it merits. I have listened very carefully to the Minister's comments, and I appreciate that she realises that some loopholes require further thought and need to be closed for the purposes of future regulation.
  I shall speak specifically to fertilisation, which is dealt with in the reasoned amendment. Last January, the House debated regulations to extend the purposes in the 1990 Act for which there may be experimentation on human embryos. Many hon. Members expressed concern that there was not enough time to consider the issues fully. The High Court's 15 November judgment has proved that those hon. Members were right to voice their concerns. Mr. Justice Crane has ruled that human embryos created by a cell nuclear replacement technique involving the insertion of the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an unfertilised egg that has had its nucleus removed are not covered within the meaning of section I of the 1990 Act. I think that all hon. Members in the Chamber have accepted that.
  Therefore, such embryos are not covered by the regulations that were pushed through so urgently in January and, consequently, all forms of human cloning, both live birth and experimental, are not illegal. The Bill seeks to prohibit live-birth cloning in primary legislation and I welcome that move. However, the prohibition does not cover research and experimentation on cloned human embryos or outlaw the creation or keeping of cloned human embryos. I am sure that hon. Members did not foresee that outcome when they voted for the regulations in January.
  In the debate on the regulations, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said:
  "I understand that many hon. Members will not have concentrated on the detail of the issues until the vote was looming because we are all extremely busy."—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360. c. 212.]
  I think that that would have been the situation whenever the matter was considered because of the complexity of the issues, by which many hon. Members may feel taken aback. I am sure that Ministers and other hon. Members are anxious to avoid anything like that happening again by getting it right this time, if at all possible. That is why I want the issues to be addressed today.
  Time to study complex issues and explore the fine detail of legislation is vital if the Government are to avoid further embarrassment. Badly drafted legislation is the result of a lack of scrutiny and must be avoided. Unfortunately, now there is even less time to consider the legislation. As hon. Members have said, the Bill is criminal law. In a court of law, it is important that the terminology is clear. If it is not, it could lead to prolonged argument and more unwelcome legal challenges. It is therefore important that, in the short time available, we define precisely the terms that are being used. Definitions are an essential part of ensuring that the Bill does not meet the same fate as the January 2001 regulations.
  A few days ago, in a debate in the other place, Lord Winston was unable to give a single definition of fertilisation. He suggested that different biologists would have different definitions and gave several examples. They included:
  1192
  "the penetration of the outer coat of the egg, the zonapellucida, with a sperm; … the penetration of the ooplasm; … the formation of a pronucleus inside the egg; … the beginning of cell division.— -[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 118W.]
  He also mentioned parthenogenesis.
  I believe that that choice of definitions can lead only to total confusion. Parthenogenesis is the technique that was used by Mike West, who made the headlines this week for having cloned the world's first embryonic human being. The Bill will not prevent the implanting of cloned embryos created by such techniques, which are described as fertilisation by Lord Winston. It is vital that terms such as "fertilisation", which is used in the Bill, are given a clear and unequivocal explanation. One of the reasons why the ProLife Alliance won its judicial review was that neither "fertilisation" nor "embryo"—as has already been mentioned—were defined in the 1990 Act. I ask, therefore, that the meaning of "fertilisation" in the context of the Bill be made clear and I hope that the Minister addresses that point when she responds. The purpose of the Bill should be to protect fertilisation and human eggs.
  I will support the Bill, because it is important that we send the right message to the public—that we oppose reproductive cloning.
  5.40 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I do not intend to detain the House for long, because I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute, but I would like the Minister to respond to two specific points. The burden of the Minister's case was, "Look, until we know whether we have won the appeal, we do not know what measures will be necessary." However, even if the Government win their appeal, two areas will remain completely unregulated according to their own lawyers. I hope that by raising the issues at this point in the debate, the Minister's brain will be able to catch up with her even if she cannot give me immediate answers. [Interruption.] That is not patronising, because I have sat on the Front Bench and have often been grateful for my brain catching up with me. It does not have far to travel and it can be done.
  The first issue concerns the 14-day limit. The Government's lawyers conceded in court that even if they won their appeal, it would not rectify an anomaly in respect of that limit. Section 3(4) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 establishes that time begins running from the date when the sperm and eggs are mixed. Cloning, however, does not involve the mixing of sperm and eggs and therefore time would not start to run. It would therefore be impossible to calculate any limit, including—obviously—the 14-day limit. That point was conceded by the Government's lawyers in court and I would like a specific comment on that point from the Minister.
  The second remaining anomaly that was accepted by the Government's lawyers concerns the consent provisions in the 1990 Act. Consent is required of people when their genetic material is being used. Because of the mechanism of cloning, consent would not be required. According to the Government's interpretation of the 1990 Act, not mine, cloned embryos will not require anybody's consent to be created, stored, experimented on or killed—or disposed of, as the Government might wish to put it. That is because under the 1990 Act, consent for the

  1193
  creation, storage or use of embryos is obtainable only from the donors of the sperm and egg that contain the resulting embryo's genetic material. Before anything is done to a fertilised embryo, full consent is required from the donors of the genetic material. In cloning, however, sperm and eggs are not used to provide the genetic material for the embryo. The genetic material comes from a cell. Thus no consent is required and no consent can be insisted upon. That point was also conceded by the Government's lawyers.
  We have not just dreamed up those problems. There are probably other anomalies as well, stemming from some of the points raised by my hon. Friends. That is why we are so concerned about the way in which the Bill is being rushed through.
  I hope that all other hon. Members share my opinion that cloning should never be used for reproductive purposes. I do not dissent from the aim of the Bill, but believe that the procedure being employed today will create an even bigger mess than the one that we have on our hands now.
  I know that it is futile to ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill and reconsider the matter, but we face a very serious muddle. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond specifically to my questions.
  Dr. Pugh: If the Minister were generous enough to offer a Select Committee investigation into the matter, or a fuller debate, would those who have tabled the amendment to deny giving the Bill a Second Reading withdraw their opposition to a ban on reproductive cloning now? Alternatively, given that it may take a long time to sort out the legal, semantic and definitional problems involved, will they remain opposed to a ban on reproductive cloning?
  Miss Widdecombe: Our position is clear, We have never been opposed to a Bill banning reproductive cloning, but we have serious and grave reservations about this Bill. Our problem is not with the aim of the Bill. Of course we want to abolish reproductive cloning. Many Conservative Members also want to abolish therapeutic cloning, but that is a separate debate. We are happy to agree that reproductive cloning should be abolished—but not by means of this Bill, in so short a time, when there is so much muddle and inadequacy.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) asked whether I would withdraw my opposition in certain circumstances, but my opposition is to this Bill, not to its general—but wholly unrealised—aim.
  Dr. Pugh: If the Minister were to offer a Select Committee examination of the matter and a fuller debate, would the right hon. Lady vote today for the ban on reproductive cloning?
  Miss Widdecombe: If the Minister offered a speedy further investigation into the matter that would allow all relevant matters to be considered, it would strengthen her hand but it would not make me any happier with this Bill. When the House debates a Bill, it is not merely debating the general principles involved. Such principles can be shared by hon. Members of all parties, but today I am opposing the Bill specifically, if not exclusively, for the two reasons that I have set out.
  5.47 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I, too, shall be brief, so that other hon. Members can contribute to the debate.
  I congratulate the Government on this short and simple Bill, and believe that there is adequate time today to discuss its two clauses. In an intervention, I said that I would not participate in the programme motion debate because I felt that the House's time should be devoted to the Bill.
  I recall that a few months ago Parliament had three full debates on therapeutic cloning. Both Houses have voted overwhelmingly in favour of it, but it is clear that many hon. Members want to reopen the debate. I regret that. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who said that we should concentrate on the provisions of the Bill, not on those matters that some hon. Members would like to revisit and reopen.
  On occasions such as this, I would normally receive much correspondence on the subject being debated. That is not the case this time, although I have received one e-mail from a constituent. She makes the point that the Bill will not provide an adequate safeguard against reproductive cloning, and that it will be difficult or impossible to enforce. She asks, too, who would be able to tell the difference between a cloned human embryo and an embryo created by in vitro fertilisation. The same point was made earlier by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).
  I do not know the right way to deal effectively with that difficulty. All I know is that I am wearing a watch and it would be difficult to tell whether it was stolen or bought legitimately, but that does not fail to make legislation effective in saying that stealing watches is illegal. The same point applies to this legislation. Moreover, anybody who succeeds in producing a cloned human being is hardly likely to be quiet about it. A person would not necessarily want to hide that, so the publicity would lead to the culprits.
  It is not surprising that people feel strongly about this issue. It is probably one of the most fundamental issues that we ever discuss. Therefore, I can understand people who feel strongly and emotionally about it.
  Therapeutic cloning offers the possibility of a cure to some nasty, degenerative inherited diseases that blight the lives of many. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South makes a powerful case because of her own condition. Clearly, if the Government fail to win their appeal on this issue, there will have to be further consideration of the legislation to cover the issues that are not addressed in this short Bill. I welcome the Minister's reassurances on that. Embryos created by cell nuclear replacement will be unregulated in that case and we may need to bring back to the House a number of other issues to make sure that they are fully debated.
  Even if the Government win their case, technology moves on. In a few months' time, a year's time or perhaps a few years' time there will be techniques that we have not thought or dreamt of today, which may make this legislation inapplicable. In that case, it will be necessary for us to reopen the debate. I can foresee that it will be necessary over the next few years repeatedly to reopen this debate because of advances in technology and science.
  Dr. Stoate: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Surely the point of the debate is that we need to change

  1195
  the law as circumstances change. Therefore, short Bills such as this can be extremely effective in sending out a message about the will of Parliament in a short and positive fashion, without the need for prolonged debate. Science will change anyway in the fullness of time.
  Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, with which I wholly agree.
  I said that my speech would be brief. I finish by saying that I intend to use my free vote tonight to support the Government in this legislation.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I feel that I have been making the same sort of speech for 30 years, but in this Chamber for 18. A number of my hon. Friends on both sides of the argument have been making similar speeches, but of course they are never the same because legislation and science move on, so we must move on too.
  I oppose human reproductive cloning and always have. I support cell nuclear replacement. The good that it can bring is enormous and we should not ignore it. I support scientific research—perhaps not surprisingly, as my wife is a science teacher, my sister a doctor and my daughter a veterinary surgeon. I also represent some thousands of world-class scientists at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, both at Porton Down.
  I also support science and scientific research precisely because I am a Christian. Christians are united in their repugnance at the concept of embryo selection, which was a trait of Nazism. Beyond that, however, we often find that as Christians we have widely different interpretations and understandings of the message of Christianity. We find ourselves passionately opposed to one another as Christians. It needs to be pointed out that there is no single Christian view on this issue—no one has a monopoly of virtue. Many good Christians work in controversial medical research and on the difficult frontier areas of science.
  I have often thought about the profligacy of nature. About 10 years ago, in the run-up to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, I consulted my then bishop, John Baker, on that question. He said:
  "When nature itself spontaneously aborts a good many embryos in these very early stages of life, it is hard to feel that to do so deliberately for good reason is contrary to God's own mind so far as that is revealed in his created order."
  That is a frightfully important point, with which some of us can certainly agree, although other Christians will disagree with it.
  I shall vote against the amendment that would outlaw cell nuclear replacement. I understand the purpose of the amendment: my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) argued it convincingly—as he always has. He has done so for 18 years and will continue to do so. One reason that I shall vote against it is that I do not want to be rushed. It is a great irony that he has argued that the Government rush everything, yet he now expects me to rush to his defence in a rushed little amendment that will completely reverse the provisions introduced during the past decade. Well, I shall not rush: I shall wait for the Lords Select Committee.
  1196
  Lord Winston seems to have become a sort of demon in this debate, but he made an important, constructive and consistent point that is worth repeating. He said that he wanted to make
  "what might he termed a religious point. I know that noble Lords may quarrel with this, but it is my view that science—knowledge—does not have a moral dimension. If we get involved with nuclear physics, we may end up inventing an atom bomb. Equally, most of us in this Chamber will have had an X-ray at some time which has been vital to our health. On the whole, we cannot know before such knowledge is derived whether it will be used for good or for ill. As human beings we have free will. We eat from the tree of knowledge; it is up to us not only to use knowledge, but also to use discernment and wisdom."
  That seems to me to be the comment of someone of great wisdom, who actually has a licence under the 1990 Act.
  Science is all about knowledge; what matters is what we do with it. In the case of Lord Winston, what we do with it has been assumed to be rather unfortunate.
  Lord Winston also said:
  "I agree with every noble Lord who has spoken today that reproductive cloning is wrong. It is clearly wrong at the moment for two obvious reasons. First, it treats a human being like a commodity, which is dangerous and unacceptable. Secondly, at the present time it carries very severe risks to the individual who is cloned. That may not always be so, but certainly it is at the moment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001: Vol. 629. c. 23–25.]
  I agree with that.
  It is because I am a Christian that I believe that we should not try to ban the pursuit of science or of knowledge, both of which I regard as God given. We do not know nearly enough about cells—how they differentiate or how they regenerate—and much good will come of that type of research.
  Many of us have visited constituents who are members of the Parkinson's Disease Society or who belong to groups such as those for the support of multiple sclerosis sufferers. I met such a group a week ago: young people only 30 or 40 years old who face a degenerative, terminal illness. What brave and courageous people they are. If we can do anything that will help them, we should do so. For me, that is a Christian obligation.
  I have been consistent about this subject for many, many years. I believe that we should all show the greatest regard for the sanctity of human life, but if Parliament refuses to allow the type of research that we are discussing we shall be deliberately turning away from people who need help—and who can be helped. That is what makes those of us who support that scientific research pro-life. We are pro-life. I will not have that term hijacked by a pressure group—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) laughs, but if only he understood what damage has been done to his own cause over the years by suggesting that those who do not agree with a particular point of view are somehow anti-life. That will rebound on them, I fear.
  Before I finish, I want to make a further point. We will return to this issue. I said in 1990 that we would return to it, and we did. I said last January that we would do so, and we will. Whatever happens, we will return to the issue because science moves on, and only the representatives of the people in Parliament should determine the boundaries within which we allow scientists to operate.
  When we next consider the issue in serious primary legislation, I hope that we shall conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. I have twice served on Committees considering

  1197
  armed forces Bills—the only sort of Bills that follow that procedure—which is very instructive because it empowers many people outside Parliament who have something to say and allows our prejudices to be exposed to the real world. It also allows a huge amount of common sense into the debate, and I hope that common sense will prevail tonight.
  6.1 pm
  Lynne Jones: As I intimated earlier, I support the Bill, but I query the need for emergency legislation. There was no urgent need to introduce the Bill today. In response to the Donaldson report last August, the Government signalled their intention to make explicit what they thought was implicit in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990—that human cloning for reproductive purposes was banned.
  It is right that the Government should make that explicit, not least because of what Baroness Warnock described in the other place as the slippery slope argument. The fact remains, however, that the Government's view last year was that the 1990 Act extended to embryos created by cell nuclear replacement. That has proved not to be the case, and I am worried that we are rushing our consideration of the Bill, which I support, when more urgent matters are not being addressed, such as the fact that the use of embryos created by methods other than fertilisation is now completely unregulated.
  The Government's view is that they will continue with their appeal against the decision in the test case, but even if they win their appeal—it is not certain that they will—there would still be nothing to stop someone else challenging the law if new scientific developments occurred. It would have been much better if the Government had accepted the recommendations—made by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee as long ago as March 1997, and reiterated in 1998, after this Government had come to power—that the definition of the word "embryo" should be amended to include any method that resulted in an embryo that was viable and likely to develop into a human being.
  The Government did not do that, but I still feel that that matter needs to be addressed urgently. If we pass this Bill today, as I am sure we shall because everyone agrees with it—our constituents are not likely to lobby us to vote against banning human reproductive cloning—I shall still be disappointed because those more important issues will remain unregulated, although they are more relevant today in the light of recent developments. That could result in future challenges even if the Government win their case. That is a big concern and, in that sense, I agree with those Conservative Members who said that some issues were unregulated. Those issues cause our constituents great concern.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Science has a nasty habit of catching us out unawares. Even Ministers are caught unawares.
  I was the Minister responsible for science at the time of the cloning of Dolly the sheep. Indeed, some thought that I was a clone of Dolly the sheep; I leave that for others to judge. It was clear that science had taken a huge leap forward, but it was not the leap that the press
  1198
  declared it to be. One of the difficulties in the debate is that hype and sensationalism take us away from a proper understanding of the scientific implications.
  We have been aware of cloning since time began in the sense that twins are cloned. In nature, things get cloned and we mix genetics each time that we crossbreed animals. Nevertheless, science is sometimes sensationalised in the press as though it were immediately possible to move from one step to another. That is one of the problems that the House will always face, but I hope that the Government have not introduced the Bill simply because of the more sensationalist comments in the press but rather to lay the foundations for clarity.
  Although there will be scientific advances, Parliament should make it clear that we do not wish some things to happen. One such thing is human reproductive cloning and, in particular, the implantation of a cell into a woman. If that is the Bill's purpose, I am happy to support it. However, many other questions are left open and we shall have to return to them.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) mentioned the number of cells that had to fail so that Dolly could eventually be cloned. This week's New Scientist says that creating the embryos that ACT—Advanced Cell Technology—was working on involved the use of 71 eggs donated by seven volunteers and three failed rounds of experiments before the first cloned embryo was generated. Even the fourth so-called successful round of experiments was far from efficient. None of the few cells that were produced reached anywhere near blastocyst stage—a mass of about 100 cells.
  Scientifically interesting though it was, this week's announcement does not take us anywhere near the possibility of using even stem cells for research purposes let alone for human cloning. I hope that we can pause for thought and consider what is happening in science, so that we can try to understand the implications.
  I will not support the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Although he did not agree with the concept when I challenged him, he appears to want to return to the period before we amended the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to allow cell nuclear replacement by extending the Act to deal with what are, by and large, degenerative diseases. Cell nuclear replacement may also have a role to play in other diseases, such as AIDS, but I shall leave that to the scientists to explain. I profoundly hope that the ambition to try to stop cell nuclear replacement is not taken any further by the House.
  Mr. Cash: As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, he, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), other hon. Members and I have been engaged in such debates for 18 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that a case exists for re-evaluating the subject, which is being done and will, we hope, produce new legislation, precisely because we were repeatedly told that human reproductive cloning was impossible? The Government therefore produced a Bill in a specific form at a given time. They got it wrong, and because human cloning is now a real possibility, we face these difficulties.
  Mr. Taylor: I cannot go back 18 years, but I remember February 1997. It was clear that we were moving towards

  1199
  science that was ultimately capable of human cloning. The process has been continued by ACT's results in the United States. We are a long way from it, and we want to find legislative methods of preventing human cloning. However, for humane reasons, we do not want to stop research into methods that, through the use of stem cells from embryos, can improve the well-being of people who suffer from degenerative diseases. I hope that we will ultimately be able to use stem cells from adults. My hon. Friend made that point earlier. I refer him to my article in The Parliamentary Monitor in October 2000. It is a fount of wisdom on the subject.
  Glenda Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the most recent debates in the House, Ministers did not claim that it was impossible to clone a human being but that it was illegal?
  Mr. Taylor: It is illegal, and thank goodness for that. We want the Bill to clarify that it is illegal. I am aware of the complexity of the issue. For example, the Bill would not make it illegal to produce cells as happened with ACT this week in the United States. The Bill makes implantation in a woman illegal. There is no risk of implantation because the scientists did not get beyond the first few stages. I believe that there were six small cells, and their life was fleeting. We are a long way from the reality, but the process exists.
  Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman said that cloning was illegal, but the court judgment shows that the law is unclear and that it is not illegal. That is why we are here tonight.
  Mr. Taylor: It was a slip of the tense of the verb. I meant to say that the Bill, which I support, would make it illegal. We believed that previous legislation had achieved that. The challenge by the ProLife Alliance has created confusion. I do not say that there should not be judicial challenges, but the ProLife Alliance cannot avoid responsibility for having created great confusion. I hope that it supports the Bill because it will do at least one more thing to reduce the uncertainty about human reproductive cloning.
  Miss Widdecombe: Supporting the Bill will leave many anomalies, which were conceded by Government lawyers in court as a result of the judgment. The pro-life argument would be that we could fulfil the responsibilities that arise from the judgment by introducing a proper Bill that takes account of them. That is what we want, but we have not got it.
  Mr. Taylor: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend and I are at one in one sense. Both of us believe that we need a fuller debate about some aspects. However, I do not want that debate to result in closing down actions for which we believed that we had already given permission. We believed that we had given permission for regulated cell nuclear replacement under the 1990 Act, as amended. I do not have a problem with preventing human reproductive cloning that involves the implantation of a cell in a woman. I also accept that other provisions could have been included in the Bill, and I believe that the Minister would accept that.
  1200
  When we know the judgment of the court, we are likely to return to the matter. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we will need to reconsider the definition of fertilisation. We may need to look at it in the context of the embryo. We will certainly need to understand many of the other issues, especially in the light of the guidance that we will receive from the House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research when it reports.
  As others want to speak, I conclude by saying that it is humane to attempt to help people who have diseases that cannot be treated by other means by encouraging scientific research. Scientists can make remarkable progress. Lord Winston may he right about there being no moral judgment in science; it is for us to make and delimit such judgment. I want to delimit what we find obnoxious and unacceptable. I most emphatically do not wish to delimit research that leads to progress that helps human beings.
  The challenge is to make that distinction. I hope that by voting in favour of Second Reading I make my views clear, but I am sure that eventually we will have to protect and extend the areas of research that we allow.
  6.16 pm
  Dr. Desmond Turner: The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) is right. In fact, he did well for a former Science Minister. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was equally sensible in recognising that we cannot set legislation in stone and assume that it will deal with the advance in science for generations to come, because science moves too fast and is too unpredictable. We should not worry about whether the Bill is the be-all and end-all of legislation on this subject. I do not think that the Minister will say that it is.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that the Bill is a stop-gap measure. None the less, it is essential. The court judgment places in grave doubt the legal position of human reproductive cloning. It is not possible to say that it is definitely illegal, so it must be clearly stated that it is illegal. I think that we all agree on that. It is essential to satisfy the universal opinion, whether we represent the pro-life, the scientific or the medical view, that human reproductive cloning is unacceptable for a raft of reasons that I do not need to mention because we are all in agreement.
  It is equally essential to make that point clear for the purposes of therapeutic cloning. We are fortunate that we have established a sensible regulatory regime for work on embryos. Medical scientists in this country know the boundaries. They know what they can and cannot do and that as long as they work within them, they are safe from attack. That is not the case in the rest of Europe where medical scientists feel unsafe and are disinclined to work in the field.
  This country benefits from taking a lead in such research. Other countries, such as Germany and Italy, cannot benefit because their medical scientists do not feel safe. At the same time, those countries are exposed in a way that we are not to unscrupulous scientists, such as our Italian friend who announced his determined intention to clone a human being. The authorities cannot stop him in Italy, but he will not be able to do it here, and that is vital.

  1201
  If the judgment is not reversed, we will have to introduce fresh legislation to regulate the use of embryos produced by nuclear transfer. That is obvious and essential, and we should not be ashamed of it. We are here to make laws and should accept it as part of our job.
  The amendment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is unfortunately somewhat mischievous. It seems that the intention behind it is to move the argument back to the stage before we last debated these matters, when we regularised the human therapeutic cloning situation. If we follow that line of reasoning and accept the amendment, we will be in a dangerous situation. I hope that it will not be supported because it is designed to take us backwards.
  I support the Bill. I do not think that it closes all the possible loopholes; I doubt whether the Minister thinks that it does. For instance, there is the theoretical possibility that a human embryo produced by nuclear transfer—that is a cloned embryo—could be exported and then transplanted into somebody from this country who has gone abroad for the purpose. We all know that women from Ireland who want an abortion have to come here because the practice is illegal there. Theoretically, that could happen with human reproductive cloning. We need to address that possible loophole.
  It is foolish to criticise the Bill because it does not do everything possible to regulate cloning in all its aspects. We need the measure now. No one pretends that it is the end of the story, but we need the Bill.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. William Cash: Over a fairly extended period, many of us have taken part in discussions, both in principle and in detail, on these matters. There is an element of deja vu. I remember that in the early days—1984 or 1985—when the issue of embryo development and scientific analysis was first being discussed, the Chamber was packed. It was vibrant with concern. I say that because there are not that many Members in their places now. However, as so many Members have said, it is a fundamental subject that we should be addressing, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.
  Those of us who have read the Bill would not want to take exception to the idea of plugging a loophole. However, the argument has been well made—it is advanced in the reasoned amendment—that the real problem is that there is a huge range of stepping stones that have led to current legislation being found to be defective. It has been ruled by the court, subject to appeal, to be defective. The real problem has lain in the fact that an opportunity has not been taken to have an in-depth analysis of what the issue is really all about.
  I would not make any claims to be a scientist or anything of that sort, and I suspect that most Members would not advance such claims, including the Minister. We are heavily dependent on advice. I have made four attempts, with support from well over 100 Members, to have an ad hoc Select Committee set up to investigate these matters. I am talking not about a departmental Committee but a Committee with proper terms of reference, which would enable the issues to be properly examined. My requests have been refused over and over again. That leaves me with grave concern.
  The matters have not been properly examined and decisions have been taken by a conglomerate of bodies, including the Medical Research Council. I wrote part of
  1202
  an article called "As Important as the Bomb" on the MRC's connection with the issue in 1985. I looked at the MRC's composition and objectives and considered the constitution of its advisory committees, asking pertinent—not, I hope, impertinent—questions about the curriculum vitae of its members, such as where they came from and what their previous positions were. How many people on those committees, which have decided what is or is not therapeutic in relation to given science, took a view contrary to that of the scientific establishment? That raises serious issues. The failure to make a proper objective analysis of those questions led to imperfections in the legislation which in turn have led to the need for the Bill.
  Lynne Jones: I cannot accept that there has been no proper objective analysis. Simply because the Science and Technology Committee does not agree with the hon. Gentleman does not mean that its analysis was not objective. We had a year-long inquiry into human genetics, then a short but specific inquiry into cloning, which made recommendations that would have dealt with the problem that we are dealing with today.
  Mr. Cash: I am disappointed that the results of the Committee's deliberations did not lead to an improvement in the legislation along the lines that I have suggested. In fact, we have ended up with a series of measures over the past 18 years. At this juncture, we are faced with a Bill produced in an emergency fashion. Undoubtedly, much of the evidence taken in the Select Committee was fair and impartial, but it did not produce the right results. Having an ad hoc Select Committee of the sort to which I referred would be a better way to proceed.
  Bearing in mind the fact that we do not have much time, I do not need to say much more. The key point is that the necessity for proper legislation will arise, but that legislation has not yet been delivered. The reasoned amendment was tabled, as other Members and I have explained, because it is essential to have a Bill which, at last, will deal comprehensively with problems that are moral and, for many Members, spiritual. It is not just a matter of scientific assessment; deep questions arise, affecting people from all walks of life and all religions—and, indeed, those with no religion. I cannot accept Lord Winston's proposition, if he was correctly quoted, that science, in effect, does not have a moral dimension. All legislative matters must be determined as matters of opinion by Members of Parliament. We are elected and have to take account of the moral dimension of all legislation, otherwise there would be no point in our being here. To summarise, it is essential to have proper legislation. The Bill does not achieve that, so I shall support the reasoned amendment.
  6.29 pm
  Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) urged the House to focus on the specifics of this short, concentrated Bill and not to be drawn into discussion of therapeutic cloning. With the honourable exception of the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), none of the contributors from the official Opposition Benches responded to my hon. Friend's plea.

  1203
  As I said earlier, I found parts of the debate this afternoon somewhat ironic. For example, the official Opposition argued that although they supported the Bill, there was insufficient time to examine it. It seemed ironic that they could support a Bill without knowing what was in it. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) urged the Government—I acknowledge that I am paraphrasing him—to be honest in their contributions, and then proceeded to quote Lord Winston in an extremely partial way.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury for giving the entire quote. Lord Winston did indeed say that
  "knowledge—does not have a moral dimension",
  but he concluded—1 will repeat it, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) clearly did not listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury—by saying:
  "We eat from the tree of knowledge; it is up to us not only to use knowledge, but also to use discernment and wisdom."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 November 2001; Vol. 629, c. 25.]
  That is central to what we are discussing.
  I found it somewhat ironic that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), urged my hon. Friend the Minister—again, I am paraphrasing—to use the correct words for describing a specific instance, and then proceeded to describe abortion as killing babies.
  Let us set all that to one side. I support the Bill and totally refute the arguments advanced by Opposition Members that the Government are panicking or attempting to rush the legislation through. In the light of the High Court decision, I regard it as urgent that the Government make abundantly clear what was said in all the debates about therapeutic cloning, and what the entire House believed was the case: that human cloning is illegal. The Government gave a belt-and-braces commitment that they would introduce legislation to ensure that such practices were illegal in this country. They have now done so.
  It is important that the Bill is passed tonight. The Government were right to introduce it when they did. We delude ourselves if we think that there is not an extremely well organised and even a sizeable body of organisations and individuals who are utterly opposed to therapeutic cloning, and certainly to abortion. When we were conducting the debates on therapeutic cloning, I received a vast mailbag from my constituents. Without exception, every single one of those letters urged me to vote against what my constituents had been told was human cloning.
  I repeat that I found it shocking that individuals and organizations—some of which I would have regarded as responsible organisations until I realised what they were doing, and I do not exclude certain arms of the Churches—were deliberately misleading people about therapeutic cloning. They were presenting it as the House actively encouraging scientists to clone human beings. That has never been the position of the House and I do not believe that it will ever be the position of the House or of the country.
  It is important that the message is sent out now. In common with the hon. Members for Salisbury and for Esher and Walton and all my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate, I believe in the paramount importance of the benefits that may be inherent in therapeutic cloning for
  1204
  the thousands, and in some instances millions, of people who have been told that there might be a possibility of their illness, disease or disability, be it genetic or otherwise, being cured or alleviated. It is necessary to encourage science to engage—here, again, I share an opinion with the hon. Member for Salisbury—in the God-given ability to explore the potential for improving the human condition.
  There must be a balance and the House must draw limits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said. I would not want to see the sort of hysteria that is sometimes attached to experiment in other areas. Animal research most obviously comes to mind. Scientists whose only commitment is to improve the human condition and to lift the burdens of disease should not be subjected to the sort of horrific treatment that they have sometimes experienced in the past. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill.
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady spoke at the outset of her speech about people who might delude themselves in this debate. She should not delude herself into thinking that the Bill is a high-minded measure that the Government have designed to fulfil their manifesto commitments. It was introduced as a result of the court judgment, which left them extremely exposed. We are not considering the Bill in the way in which it should be considered. It is being rushed through all its stages in the House of Commons in one day. That is a measure of how rushed the Government require it to be. We need far more measured legislation that covers a much wider area than we are discussing now.
  Glenda Jackson: I do not recall using the phrase "high-handed" or even "high-minded". I support the Government's introduction at such speed of this very small, tightly controlled and focused Bill for the reasons that I have given. It is important that the House shows that it supports in the main the areas of scientific advance that can bring genuine support not tomorrow or next year, but a long way down the line, and that can actively play a part in relieving the unnecessary burdens of so many millions of people around the world. The argument should not be left to those who maliciously argue that any such exploration or scientific discovery is anti-life or will automatically produce cloned human beings, so I say that the House should stand firm and support the Bill.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I disagree with everything that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) has said. Some years ago, she sought to divide the House on a ten-minute Bill that I had tabled to stop sex selection. She was proud that she defeated a Bill that tried to stop sex selection in this country. I was not convinced by her arguments and I found her completely confusing.
  Glenda Jackson: May I say that I am equally proud that the hon. Gentleman disagreed with everything that I said in this debate?
  Mr. Amess: We are proud and different.
  I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and his reasoned amendment. Although I shall support the excellent Bill

  1205
  that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) is due to introduce to the House tomorrow, I did not agree with anything that he said. I know that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is not in his place, but I hope that he will look at the record, as he will see that the House of Lords Stem Cell Research Committee has not addressed any issues of law. Indeed, the Clerk specifically told me that it would not be doing so, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was wrong on that point.
  Before hon. Members groan, let me say that I very much agree with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who recently said:
  "The Government's proposed Bill does nothing to stop the creation of a human clone: it merely prohibits the transfer of the cloned human embryo to the body of a woman. The clone may be treated in any conceivable way, with no time limit on experimentation, as the High Court judgment makes clear. Experimental cloning is left wholly unregulated. The Bill merely prevents an attempt, in this country, to give the clone a chance of being born. It is often suggested that 'therapeutic' cloning is simply the production of stem cells for research—thus glossing over the creation of the cloned embryo from whom the cells are taken."
  I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) did not want us to get on to these matters, but I point out that the House will never settle what life is. There are huge differences of opinion between us on the definitions, and we shall just have to disagree on that matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. in his reasoned amendment, has shown up the Bill for what it is. It is hopeless. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) suggested, the idea that the Government are coming forward like a knight in shining armour to deliver the Bill is ridiculous. We are participating in these dreadful proceedings because of the Government's incompetence. That is the way—
  Miss Begg: I had not been aware of the hon. Gentleman's Bill on sex selection. He must accept that, under the original Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has stopped sex selection—it did so in the case of a couple in Monifieth. The Act that the hon. Gentleman is so heavily criticising, passed by a Conservative Government when he was in the House, has done what he wanted. Is it not also the case that if the Government win their appeal, which I hope that they do, all the other issues that is raising will be covered by the Bill?
  Mr. Amess: That is not the case. Furthermore, the tacky little operation that peddles the idea that people can choose the sex of their child is still offering its services in north London. I see that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has now gone. Anyway, I am not entirely sure about that.
  The reason why I am so cynical about the Bill is that there are undoubtedly vested interests in this area. It is no great coincidence that in November 2000, the Prime Minister gave a speech to the European bioscience conference in London. That was at the same time, by the way, that he would not agree to have a meeting with the leaders of all our faiths, yet he managed to attend this conference. He told delegates that the biotechnology market in Europe alone would be worth $100 billion and
  1206
  could be employing 3 million people by 2005. He was clearly anxious to ensure British involvement in the market, and he said:
  "Biotechnology is the next wave of the knowledge economy, and I want Britain to become its European hub."
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am hesitant to say this to one of my hon. Friends, but the Prime Minister was, as he does in many areas, following the lead that I and my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry took before May 1997, when we launched a crusade for biotechnology because we understood its importance for the improvement of mankind.
  Mr. Amess: This is getting out of hand. First we had the Prime Minister saving the world, and now my hon. Friend saving it. My hon. Friend was a splendid Minister, but we disagree on this point.
  In September 1999, Lord Sainsbury appeared at a fringe meeting at the Labour party conference and declared his unequivocal support for embryonic stem cell research. The Biolndustry Association sponsored the meeting, and Lord Sainsbury shared a platform with Dr. Simon Best, the director of Geron BioMed. Michael West, who founded Geron BioMed, was the gentleman associated with the recent example of human cloning. Is this a coincidence, I ask myself?
  Mr. Stephen Pound: May I counsel the hon. Gentleman, in as gentle a manner as I am capable of, that many of us in the Chamber are strongly minded to support the reasoned amendment? However, every word that he launches into the Chamber makes us less inclined to do so.
  Mr. Amess: I say to my co-chair of the all-party Scout Association group that, on my word of honour, I suspected that that might happen. I shall be brief and tone it down a little.
  I am not suggesting that any Labour Member has any part in a vested interest, but I have some difficulty with the matter not being dealt with even-handedly. For instance, Dr. Chris Evans is one of the Labour party's largest donors. He is involved in the £100 million genome campus in Cambridgeshire. In 1996, his company backed a company called ReNeuron, which was set up by three scientists at King's college. He invested £5 million in the only UK company developing an innovative cell transplantation technology with the potential to treat brain disorders. A long list of people, including Sir Ronald Cohen, Dr. George Poste, Professor Christine Gosden and Anne McLaren have a vested interest in the matter and also have the Government's ear.
  I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to support the reasoned amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I call Hazel Blears.
  Mr. Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for you to invite an hon. Member to speak a second time when other Members have been unable to contribute substantively once?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is done with the leave of the House.
  6.46 pm
  Ms Blears: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  This is a complex issue. We have heard a number of well researched and expert contributions, and ranged over complicated matters of law and difficult matters of science. I wonder whether I need two brains rather than one to catch up, but I shall do my best to deal with as many issues as possible.
  First, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) asked when the Government first knew that the legal position meant that it was necessary to introduce the legislation before the House. I can confirm that the point at which the Government knew was 15 November, when Mr. Justice Crane handed down the judgment in the High Court. That necessitated this urgent legislation. Until then, the view was that human reproductive cloning remained illegal because the embryology authority would refuse to license it. Therefore, in the absence of a licence, it would be a criminal offence if carried out.
  Dr. Fox rose—
  Ms Blears: I must move on, because I am anxious to deal with as many complex issues that Members raised as I can. I have a responsibility to do so.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring also suggested that the powers in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 regulating the use of human eggs are sufficient to deal with this situation. I can tell him that they are not. That Act regulates the storage of eggs, not matters carried out in relation to fresh eggs. Therefore, it is not sufficient to achieve what we want to achieve.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raised a lot of "what if' questions about the various court cases, asking what would happen if the Government won, what would happen if the applicant won and how long we would take to make a decision on bringing the matter back to the House for further consideration.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The House of Lords appeal.
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman also asked about whether there would be a House of Lords appeal and whether there would be an appeal to the European Court. I repeat what I said to open the debate: it would be wrong to anticipate what the Court of Appeal may have to say. We must consider the judgment in detail, see where the gaps are and see which issues we need to bring back to the House.
  Alongside the appeal process is the report of the House of Lords Select Committee. The Committee has been meeting for nigh on 12 months, so it is important that we treat its considerations with great seriousness and respect. I come to the comments—
  Dr. Harris: Dedifferentiated cells.
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman reminds me. I understand that, in the circumstances that he outlined, the embryo would not be created by fertilisation, but there are difficulties in defining the techniques precisely in legislation. That reinforces my initial point. What we have
  1208
  tried to do is provide that embryos created by fertilisation are covered by the 1990 Act. while those created in any other way will be covered by the 2001 Act—if it becomes an Act. There is no room for embryos to, as it were, fall through the middle.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) raised detailed and complex issues. She did not think that the 14-day limit on experimentation would apply to embryos created by cell nuclear replacement. The provision that she mentioned, which refers to the 14-day period or the point at which the primitive streak first appears, is called a deeming provision in law. It seeks to clarify further the primary measure—I think it appears in section 3(3) of the Act—which provides that no experimentation shall be carried out after the primitive streak appears.
  Clearly, in the case of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement as well as those created by fertilisation, there will be a point at which the primitive streak appears. If the Government won their case in the Court of Appeal and embryos created by cell nuclear replacement were covered by the regulatory framework in the 1990 Act, they would also be covered by the provision relating to experimentation. Because in their case too there is a point at which the primitive streak appears, the deeming provision that appears in, I believe, section 3(4) of the Act seeks to clarify the definition of that primitive streak even further.
  The right hon. Lady raised another complex issue, that of consent. She suggested that because the consent provisions in the 1990 Act applied to the owners of the egg and the sperm, and in this instance the owners of the gametes, embryos created by cell nuclear replacement—or the constituent parts of such embryos, being the enucleated egg and the adult cell—would not be subject to the same issues of consent. In fact the egg would be subject to consent: it is clearly a gamete, and would therefore he covered by the 1990 Act. As for the adult cell that would be implanted in the enucleated egg, the common-law provisions would demand consent for any medical treatment requiring the extraction and implantation of that cell. There would therefore be legal coverage, although I accept that it would not be in the same legislation.
  I understand that if the Government won their case and the regulatory framework applied to CNR embryos, the authority would have to issue a licence in which it would be able to make provision with regard to consent. That ought to deal with all the right hon. Lady's points.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made an excellent speech. It was short, pointed and succinct—a little like the Bill, in fact—and featured her usual common sense and practicality. I was grateful for her support.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) made a very considered contribution. He wanted reassurance that, if the Government lost the appeal, we would produce legislation to ensure that CNR embryos were given the same protection as embryos created by fertilisation. I think that I have made it clear that we want to move in that direction, but we must wait and see what the judgment says in terms.

  1209
  In another excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner)—who brought considerable experience to the debate—also asked for reassurance about further legislation. I am happy to give him that reassurance.
  We heard a typically knowledgeable and, in my view, extremely interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who managed yet again to discuss complex science in terms that all of us could understand. He also gave excellent illustrations of what could happen. He said that human reproductive cloning was a very dangerous science, and explained why it was so important for us to pass a Bill ensuring that that dangerous science—given all its possible effects—was not practised here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) has a fine record on speaking in all the House's debates on research regulations and therapeutic cloning. Today, she brought great practical and common sense to the debate by asking us to concentrate on the Bill's core provisions, which are narrow, tightly drawn, very focused and seek to achieve a particular state of affairs. I am grateful for her support.
  I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear most of the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but I have been able to pick up from references to it by other Opposition Members precisely where it was going—which seems to be in an almost backwards direction.
  After the debates earlier this year in both this place and another place, it is clear that the vast majority of Members want therapeutic cloning to be allowed so that we can research and tackle the whole range of tremendously damaging degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, Parkinson's and diabetes which affect thousands of people. However, Members also want that research to be done within a proper, rigorous and regulated framework, so that the public can be assured that the research is being done in a proper manner. As hon. Members have said, the science has to be conducted in a manner that we decide is socially, morally and ethically appropriate. A legal framework is vital in ensuring that it is appropriate.
  I assure the hon. Member for Gainsborough that the ICSI process will not be outlawed by the legislation but can continue. I hope that that offers him some comfort.
  I acknowledge the tremendous experience of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in these matters. I have had the pleasure of reading his contributions in various debates, and I think that he is probably one of the most knowledgeable hon. Members on these issues because he has been involved in them almost from the beginning. He spoke today about getting the balance right and ensuring that we take this urgent action. Like other hon. Members, he suggested the possibility of pre-legislative scrutiny. I am delighted that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that pre-legislative scrutiny is working well. The Government decided to introduce it because we thought that it would work well. I shall certainly consider his request.
  The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) made a very thoughtful and practical speech. He said that the Bill's objectives are clear, and I am grateful to him for that support. He also said that the settled will of Parliament was to ensure that the research continues, but under a proper framework.
  1210
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that he will support the reasoned amendment and not the Bill. I am very surprised that hon. Members should not want to support the Bill, which will outlaw human reproductive cloning as I think that the vast majority of the public want us to do that. The reasoned amendment wants to take us backwards and reopen the whole debate on therapeutic cloning, but the House has already made clear its views on that matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) offered another sensible, no-nonsense approach to the issue which was very welcome. She made it abundantly clear that the Government are not going to allow human reproductive cloning. That is the will of Parliament and has the public's support.
  It is clear that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) also wants to reopen the whole debate on the use of cell nuclear replacement embryos for research on the development of stem cells to tackle degenerative diseases. The Bill does not seek to address that issue. It is a narrow, tightly drawn and tightly focused Bill that seeks to make human reproductive cloning illegal in the United Kingdom. The Bill should command the support of the vast majority of hon. Members. It will send out a very clear message that that procedure is not to be allowed.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Woodspring who said that, if they are to have confidence in science and the way in which biomedicine is developing, the public will have to see that we are a sensible Government who are ensuring that science is developing in a structured and managed manner. People who have a clear grasp of these complex issues know that we are not a Government who are going to walk away and that we care deeply about these issues. We recognise the social, moral, ethical and political implications of the research. We are absolutely determined—
  It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 49. Noes 288.

  Division No. 94]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hoban, Mark

  Brazier, Julian

  Horam, John

  Burns, Simon

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cash, William

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Conway, Derek

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lidington, David

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dobbin, Jim

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Drew, David

  Prisk, Mark

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Evans, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Ruffley, David

  Francois, Mark

  Selous, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Swayne, Desmond

  Grieve, Dominic

  Swire, Hugo

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  1211

  Tyler, Paul

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Watetson, Nigel

  Watkinson, Angela

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mr. Paul Goodman and

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Paul Marsden.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ainger, Nick

  David, Wayne

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Doughty, Sue

  Austin, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Bailey, Adrian

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Baird, Vera

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Barnes, Harry

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Edwards, Huw

  Beard, Nigel

  Efford, Clive

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Etherington, Bill

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bennett, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Farrelly, Paul

  Berry, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Best, Harold

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Flint, Caroline

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brennan, Kevin

  Garnier, Edward

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Butterfill, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cameron, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Challen, Colin

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Havard, Dai

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Holmes, Paul

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hurst, Alan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cousins, Jim

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Joyce, Eric

  1212

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Price, Adam

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purnell, James

  Key, Robert

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rapson, Syd

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rendel, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lamb, Norman

  Lammy, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Roy, Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Salmond, Alex

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Salter, Martin

  Lepper, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sawford, Phil

  Levitt, Tom

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Linton, Martin

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Tony

  Sheridan, Jim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Love, Andrew

  Simon, Siôn

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Squire, Rachel

  McKechin, Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  MacShane, Denis

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McWalter, Tony

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Stringer, Graham

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mallaber, Judy

  Syms, Robert

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mann, John

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Marris, Rob

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Martlew, Eric

  Timms, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Miller, Andrew

  Touhig, Don

  Moffatt, Laura

  Truswell, Paul

  Mole, Chris

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Moran, Margaret

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Morley, Elliot

  Tynan, Bill

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mountford, Kali

  Viggers, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Watson, Tom

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Watts, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Weir, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  White, Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Owen, Albert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Perham, Linda

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Picking, Anne

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wills, Michael

  Plaskitt, James

  Winnick, David

  Pond, Chris

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wood, Mike

  1213

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woolas, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. John Heppell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
  Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will not have escaped your notice that at the Committee stage of the Bill none of the amendments were discussed, and that that stage included only forthwith votes on stand parts. Is that really what is meant by parliamentary scrutiny, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will you, as the guardian of the right of the House to hold the Executive to account, please examine the proceedings today with a view to ensuring that they can never be repeated?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to inform the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the timing of the debate was very much in the hands of the House itself, as it had agreed to the allocation of time order.

  Hospice Movement
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  7.15 pm
  David Taylor: I am especially pleased to have secured this debate on the future of the UK hospice movement in the light of recent closure announcements affecting four of the 20 homes run by Sue Ryder Care, including the hospice at Staunton Harold hall in my constituency.
  I shall outline the history of the hospice movement in the United Kingdom, the problems that it has traditionally encountered and the inherent limitations of the over-reliance of the national health service on the voluntary sector to deliver what is now an essential element of public health care. My speech will draw on the research of the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services and Help the Hospices. I am grateful for their assistance.
  In 1967, the voluntary sector, tackling a gaping hole in state provision, founded St. Christopher's, Britain's first modern hospice at Sydenham. Prior to that, what we have come to know as palliative care might occasionally have been provided in the patient's own home, but availability was patchy and remained so for some decades.
  The lives of most people will be touched by cancer, either their own or that of a relative or friend; my life was, two decades ago. A searing memory comes back unbidden of a family member who contracted myeloma and of how we were all traumatised by the terminal phase of that bone marrow disease. It was an awful period for our family, with a prolonged physical and emotional agony that might have been relieved had hospice care been available.
  The growth of the hospice movement has offered the chance of equity of access to provision but, for reasons that I shall detail, it remains restricted in its ability to expand and to provide an increasing number of beds. Even with the limitations of the voluntary sector, that vital, magnificent and enduring movement can still provide 70 per cent. of all in-patient care, 87 per cent. of all day care, 44 per cent. of all home care and 81 per cent. of all out-of-hours care.
  Voluntary contributions created and sustained the first hospices and remain the financial life blood of the majority of them. The voluntary sector continues to run two thirds of all hospices in the UK. Although the need for state provision of palliative care was eventually acknowledged, the growth of NHS contributions to voluntary sector hospices has been agonisingly slow, although it was at least ring-fenced until the early 1990s.
  The removal of the separate status of hospices in health authority budgets has, I fear, led to the closure of charitable hospices.
  Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest problem is that there is a disparity between what is given by health authorities and trusts and that that has a disproportionate effect on hospices?
  David Taylor: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, whose Adjournment debate on this topic was a seminal one in the last Parliament. He makes a valid point, as I hope to show later.

  1215
  In the late 1980s, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley), in her capacity as a Health Minister, stated:
  "The Government's objective is to work towards a position in which the contribution from public funds available to voluntary hospices and similar organisations matches that of voluntary giving. This will provide a clear basis on which to plan ahead"— [Official Report, 15 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 847W.]
  That seemed to be a huge leap forward, and it led voluntary hospices to base their plans on hopes of an eventual move towards 50 per cent. state funding, but, with some exceptions in Scotland, that objective was never achieved. One of the better English cases—Leicestershire' s Loros—receives 41 per cent. state funding. However, since 1996, the proportion of funding that the independent charitable hospices sector receives from the state has declined from 35 to 29 per cent. in 2000–01.
  Mr. David Lepper: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation faced by the Martlets hospice, which serves the Brighton and Hove area, is not uncommon in that it still relies on annual funding from the primary care group and therefore cannot plan ahead, as it could if it were given three-year funding?
  David Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Indeed, I shall make a similar point later. The three-year planning horizon is illusory for many hospices.
  Children's hospices receive state funding of only a meagre 5 per cent. on average. If we are to safeguard the widespread provision of palliative care, the need for a national strategy for the funding of voluntary hospices cannot be stated strongly enough. The restoration of their separate status would prevent the perpetuation of the present almost annual negotiations with health authorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts for emergency supplementary funding. Left unaddressed, the disparities in the statutory funding of hospices and the resulting unevenness of geographical provision will worsen.
  The voluntary sector's role in providing hospice care has been invaluable to successive Governments in taking the burden of responsibility off the NHS. That has led to a culture of complacency towards palliative care in the NHS and its Treasury paymasters, in which health authorities seem to regard it as a late call on tight budgets, not as one of the first claims. Unsurprisingly, palliative care is still viewed as the preserve of the voluntary sector, providing significant volunteering opportunities to those with personal experience of nursing terminally ill relatives.
  That tacit arrangement continues to characterise hospice and palliative care provision in the United Kingdom, and it is to the eternal credit of the volunteers and professionals working in the sector that, despite a future shot through with uncertainty, they continue to provide environs of dignity and respect and an incomparable quality of care to those coming to the end of their lives. I am not saying, however, that the NHS should always incorporate hospice or palliative care facilities in hospitals even if appropriate sites are available.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems,
  1216
  under Governments of either party, is that when there is a substantial increase in spending, such as a staff pay rise, every part of the NHS gets the money except the hospices?
  David Taylor: I must have left my draft speech on a photocopier, because I shall come to that very point later. NHS inflation, especially in relation to nurses' pay, is a serious problem. Coherent guidelines for local health authorities and PCTs need to be formulated so that local health authorities are encouraged—or, in new Labour-speak, incentivised—to improve their perception and usage of hospice services.
  I understand that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is in the process of creating such guidelines for the budget holders, but that they are not due to be published until the middle of next year. Will the Minister please confirm the planned publication time scale?
  Furthermore, the psychology of the service and environment provided by the voluntary sector often has important advantages for the patient over NHS provision, where beds are typically found for palliative care in a hospital or, at least, on an adjacent site. Even if practical, NHS provision does not offer psychological or psycho-social sanctuary to terminally ill people in the way that hospices have traditionally done. The voluntary sector can offer a curative distance, alleviating the emotional agony of terminal illness. The Government are to be applauded for acknowledging that intrinsic advantage as they promote and encourage partnership between the NHS, voluntary, independent and charitable sectors.
  In my constituency, the life of the Sue Ryder Care hospice at Staunton Harold hall is drawing to an early and unnecessary end, speeded by the action of its landlords, the Ryder Cheshire Foundation. A 31-year lease on that historic building, which is in the most picturesque and tranquil setting, is being surrendered under pressure from the foundation, as part of its need to realise assets. Hard-nosed boardroom attitudes enter by the front door, and agency funding and caring staff have left by the rear.
  However, the foundation is not the only guilty party in this sad saga. Poor co-ordination between the various NHS bodies leads to a successor range of small palliative facilities attached to hospitals that will struggle to approach the quality of care that is the bedrock of Staunton's reputation. The 20,000-plus signatures on the petition handed in at Sue Ryder Care's head office in London bore testimony to the high esteem and affection that local people have for the Staunton Harold hospice.
  A magnificent care home closes. Despite an energetic fight by William Fantham, Helen Fawcett and their fellow KOSSH campaigners, a treasured hospice is to be lost—one on which local communities had become very reliant and to which they have become most attached. The national charitable sector is the smallest presence in the palliative care network with just 17 UK hospices and it is very vulnerable to the sort of circumstances that have sadly stolen the jewel from the Leicestershire hospice crown.
  Although I welcome the £50 million pledged to palliative services in the NHS cancer plan and the opening up of the new opportunities fund to the voluntary sector, the allocation process highlights what has traditionally hampered the sector in the expansion of its progressive care practices: the disparate and improvised nature of its

  1217
  statutory funding. That leads to a perennially precarious situation. Hospices can go for months not knowing their long or even short-term prospects for survival, with the spectre of closure and the removal of patients from their beds always hanging over them.
  Although late funding is often found from one source or another, the supposed three-year length of the contracts with the health authorities is rarely the case in reality. Such is the frugal nature of NHS contributions. It is a cruel irony that, in some years, hospices are often saved from closure by the deaths of former patients and/or their relatives.
  In January 2001 in England, not including children's hospices, there were 449 hospice or palliative care beds available in the 36 NHS units compared with 2,074 beds in the 127 voluntary "units". Logically, this would be respected as an exemplar of best practice and value for money and the state would recognise the success of this palliative care model by embarking on a national strategy to guarantee its funding. But there is little logical about the disproportionate emphasis on handling a slow inflow of tax revenue that has masqueraded as modern government for the past 20 years.
  Post-Staunton provision in North-West Leicestershire is obviously a priority for the local primary care group. I believe that four beds in Coalville community hospital are already earmarked for palliative usage. Good as that is, it illustrates the improvised nature of palliative provision. Staunton Harold's capacity was latterly 12 beds, supplemented only by a handful of other voluntary hospices
  Unfortunately, that situation of insufficient beds and sites is replicated all over the country. Lord Hunt said recently that the NHS was mapping existing services to identify and tackle geographical inequalities. I welcome that, but it must not be an excuse for delay nor a disincentive to the voluntary sector if little extra funding is to be available in areas with high community involvement.
  In summary, existing state funding is inadequate to provide even a very basic level of universal palliative care. Despite the welcome £50 million for specialist palliative care in the NHS cancer plan, local hospices trying to access this funding via the cancer networks cannot find the way in to the foggy maze that confronts them. This cloud of uncertainty over finance also embraces strategic planning as the NHS seems unwilling to spell out its core palliative care responsibilities. That is at the heart of the present crisis.
  We need a national strategy and framework for palliative care. Hospices need to know what the state accepts as its responsibilities and that the Government will commit to fund them. With a more realistic taxpayer contribution to costs, charitable fundraising can focus on the piloting and expansion of progressive care and treatments.
  Communications between Government, their agencies and the voluntary sector have been improved a little by the national compact, but the startling lack of awareness about it by the Department of Health has seriously impaired its dealings with the voluntary hospice movement. Properly joined-up government could and should change such cynical reactions into more constructive relations.
  1218
  There is a tremendous fund of good will towards the voluntary and charitable hospice movement from the generous British public, but their ability to underwrite the costs of this crucial service has been stretched too far. Collecting tins, charity shops and cake stalls can only do so much. National taxation, whether hypothecated or not, needs to pull its weight. Warm words from Government are not enough. We need action—and now.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Andy Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Minister for giving me the opportunity to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. We have worked closely together on the matters that we are discussing.
  I want to speak specifically about children's hospices. The Rainbow hospice is a fantastic children's hospice in my constituency. It suffers from the sort of problems that my hon. Friend described. I know from my visits to it that it rightly calls itself a place of rest on a long and difficult journey. Rainbow provides respite and terminal care in the hospice and at home for children who suffer from conditions that mean that they will die before reaching adulthood. We need to remember that that is what hospices are about.
  One problem is that Rainbow has to cover Derby, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and south Yorkshire. Although it helps families to cope with life-shortening conditions such as Batten disease or life-threatening conditions such as cancer, working across such a wide area is extremely difficult.
  I want to concentrate briefly on Rainbow's wonderful work. As my hon. Friend said, fundraising has become increasingly important. The hospice has to raise more than £1 million simply to remain as it is. It is lucky in being able to raise 10 per cent. of its income from health authorities and others. That is above the national average, but it shows the enormous amount of work that such a hospice has to do. Although it produces wonderful glossies and can rely on the good will of people in my constituency and throughout the east midlands, so much effort is put into fundraising that one feels that more of it should be directed at the excellent care that is provided at Rainbow.
  As I said, Rainbow has to deal with all the health authorities in the counties that I mentioned. I have always supported PCTs, but I fear that even more work will have to be done to ensure the continuation of funding to Rainbow. I appreciate that the Minister and the health team have been considering innovative ways of providing health care in the future, but they should consider the excellent work that is happening not only at Rainbow but in the constituencies of the majority of hon. Members who have stayed for the debate. It is a testament to the work of hospices that so many hon. Members are in the Chamber.
  I repeat that there is no agreed national strategy about funding voluntary hospices. They negotiate with health authorities, PCGs and PCTs, which means that there is a wide variance. The Government rightly emphasise an end to the postcode lottery for many other aspects of the health service. I hope that the Minister can end the postcode lottery that appears to be happening in our hospice movement.

  1219
  More PCTs will make matters harder. From parliamentary questions that I have tabled in the past, I know that health authorities receive an element of funding for hospices. However, not all of them necessarily use the allocation to fund their local hospices. The further away one travels from Leicestershire, the greater the difficulty of convincing health authorities in, for example, south Yorkshire that they should contribute to the work of Rainbow hospice in Loughborough.
  I make a simple plea to examine the funding of children's hospices seriously, end the postcode lottery that appears to be happening in my area, consider developing a national strategy to bring the best and worst authorities closer together and assess the impact of the move to PCTs on the amount of work that hospices will have to do to secure their current level of funding.
  7.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on securing a debate on such an important subject as the future of the hospice movement. I am aware of the specific anxieties that he raises about the Sue Ryder home at Ashby.
  The hospice currently receives 50 per cent. funding from the NHS for its services. That is above the national average of 30 per cent., which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. The closure is due to the termination of the lease by the Ryder Cheshire Foundation rather than the lack of NHS support, but we do need to ensure the continuation of services. To that end, I understand that there has been a constructive discussion between the home and the NHS to work out some options that have been debated by interested parties and will be considered by the cancer network management board in November.
  As my hon. Friends said, the hospice movement is a success story. As a result, we are world leaders in palliative care. It was the hospice movement that first demonstrated the importance of ensuring that those nearing the end of their lives, and their families and carers, receive compassionate and skilful care. That good practice, which began outside the NHS and is still, as my hon. Friends rightly highlighted, predominately provided by the voluntary sector, is now acknowledged as a service that should be available to all who require it. That of course extends beyond those who need it for cancer services.
  There are large variations in the provision and funding of specialist palliative care. Hospices have tended to be established in areas where the general public have been generous. That has enabled centres of excellence based on clinical practice, teaching and research to be established. Unfortunately, it has also resulted in patchy provision and wide variations between regions.
  We have issued guidance to the NHS for palliative care strategies to be in place to meet the needs of the local population, and we are committed to tackling those inequalities in access to specialist palliative care services for patients.
  My hon. Friends rightly ask for action. Let me explain what we intend to do to ensure that palliative care is adequately funded and the inequalities addressed. The
  1220
  national council estimates that total expenditure on adult palliative care services is about £300 million, of which about £170 million is provided by the voluntary sector and £130 million by the NHS.
  The NHS cancer plan sets out our intention to invest an additional £50 million in specialist palliative care by 2004, which will match, on a national basis, the investment by the voluntary sector. That will also enable the NHS to make a realistic contribution to the costs that hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service. We will monitor the information from the service delivery plans and financial frameworks, which will help to provide a transparency for the level of investment made in reaching that target. We intend to ensure that that happens.
  In addition, a further £70 million has been committed by the new opportunities fund to palliative care projects in England. Of that, £22 million has been allocated to adult community palliative care, building on the living with cancer programme, but extending to conditions other than cancer. Merely increasing investment in specialist palliative care, however, will not necessarily address the inequality of provision. We need to know the current level of provision and what is required to meet the needs of the local population.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman knows that time is limited.
  That is why we have put in place a series of measures. We have commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to undertake an evidence-based review of palliative care services as part of the supportive and palliative care service guidance. The guidance will benefit the voluntary sector and help decision making about service delivery. I can confirm that initial findings will be available from summer 2002.
  We have required all 34 cancer networks to develop costed strategic investment three-year plans for palliative care. My hon. Friends made an important point about the certainty of investment. The plans will be based on current provision and local population needs and will form part of the cancer network service delivery plans. Those plans will inform the wider NHS planning process through the health improvement programmes and the service and financial frameworks for 2002–03.
  For the first time, comprehensive data on the current provision of palliative care at a network level will be available. Networks will be able to see where the inequalities in specialist palliative care service provision are and plan services to address that, and as a consequence enable more realistic support for voluntary hospices. That will also enable hospices to plan strategically with cancer networks and identify their own business strategies, putting an end to short-term planning.
  I must stress, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, that we recognise the importance of ensuring that the needs of voluntary sector providers are fully reflected in network investment plans. In some instances, hospices may find it difficult to know how best to influence the process, which is why we have made available central funding to support voluntary hospice and palliative care providers in working effectively with cancer networks in the development of

  1221
  plans. All networks are participating in the programme, funded by the Department and led by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must recognise the vital contribution made by the voluntary sector and engage it realistically and properly in NHS planning. We must support the sector to enable it to make its contribution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) rightly drew attention to the Rainbow children's hospice. I am grateful that he set out the important work that it undertakes. It is a tribute to the many voluntary organisations that identified the help most needed. Their staff, supporters and well-wishers often have a special appreciation of the care that is required, which is often gained through deep personal experience.
  Children's hospices have made a remarkable contribution to the care and support of dying children and their families. Fortunately, most children will grow into adulthood without experiencing a serious illness, let alone a life-threatening one, but some children are not so fortunate and develop conditions that may lead to an early death. It is important that in the NHS of the future these children and their families have high-quality support services and that coverage is extended so that equal access to a range of options is made possible.
  Provision has been made for funds for children's hospices to come from the NHS. It is a matter for local discussion and agreement and is based on the local health needs assessment with the health improvement programme, which is the general funding mechanism for services. Voluntary health care providers, such as hospices, must be viewed as important players in the planning and provision of services, and should be involved in the development of health improvement programmes. That involvement should help to lead to more structured funding streams.
  I recognise the concern that has been expressed about the development of primary care trusts and the role that they play. The year 2002–03 will be one of transition, with PCTs at different stages of development. They are increasingly making planning and investment decisions on behalf of their local communities. As key players within cancer networks, PCTs will have agreed to and contributed to the development of the network service delivery plan. That will be crucial. We shall soon be issuing national guidance on the new arrangements for the
  1222
  2002–03 planning process, and allocations will soon be announced to Parliament. As I have said, PCTs will be involved in the cancer network planning process that I have outlined.
  Each region now has a children's "lead" and is surveying the provision of children's palliative care services against demand, engaging voluntary and statutory sectors. We expect this work to secure a far better strategic fit of services to local needs and to achieve a range of options, and to afford greater equity of access for all people.
  As I mentioned earlier, a further £70 million has been committed by the new opportunities fund to palliative care projects in England, of which £48 million has been allocated for children's palliative care to support programmes providing at least one of the following: direct services in the community to children with life-threatening or life-limiting illness—24-hour care; respite care services, which are either home-based or hospice-based; and bereavement services that are home based, community based or hospice based.
  My hon. Friends have rightly said that the founders of the hospice movement, through dogged persistence, careful research and tireless fundraising, helped others to see that care was possible and at the heart of good clinical practice. As a Government, we have set out a challenging agenda for the support of palliative services for adults and children. We are committed to delivering this agenda, and we must work in partnership with the hospice movement if we are to do so. I give my commitment that that is the Government's pledge.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: As time is still available, will the Minister say how we will get the £50 million? Hospices throughout the country have been in touch, as she well knows, with the cancer organizations—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the procedures of the House. The Minister had already resumed her place. It is too late for an intervention.
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Public Participation
[Relevant document: Sixth Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, Session 2000–01, HC 373.] Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
2.30 pm
Tony Wright: It is a great pleasure to be able to introduce the sixth report of the Public Administration Committee in 2001 and to use it as the basis for a debate on public participation. The report was published in April of this year and was based on 10 sessions of oral evidence taken from 34 witnesses between November 1999 and April 2000. The Committee was greatly assisted in its work by our specialist advisers Professor Vivien Lowndes and Professor Patrick Dunleavy. An innovative feature of our inquiry was an online consultation sponsored by the Hansard Society. It was the first time that a Committee of the House had conducted such a consultation, and it has been followed by others. The Government replied to the report, and their reply was the subject of our first report of the current Session.
The background to our inquiry was our desire to know more about the innovations that were taking place in public participation in this country and to find out what lessons we could learn, what improvements we could make and how that participation contributed generally to our democratic system. I have been worrying and thinking about the question of public participation for 40 years, and I am not sure that I am getting much further in my thinking on it. As I was thinking about this debate I could not help but remember—I see some faces of the same generation here—the golden age of the 1960s, when we were students going to demonstrations and doing things to change the world. The student revolutionaries in France had a wonderful slogan, which we wrote all over the walls. It was a conjugation of the verb to participate, which some hon. Members will remember. It went: "I participate; you participate; he, she or it participates; we participate—they decide." That was the sting in the tail. Lots of wonderful participation was going on, but somehow it was not changing things much because "they" were still deciding.
We are still worrying about the same issues. The perfect text for this debate would come from the writings of the great 19th-century thinker on these matters, John Stuart Mill. Mill said, famously, that
"any participation, even in the smallest public function, is useful".
He meant that participation is useful in the development of citizenship. If we are serious about having a society based on a notion of citizenship, with people contributing to the common good, thinking about the public interest and taking part, then participation is essential. That is the elusive classical goal that we have pursued year in, year out, often seeming not to get much closer to it.
322WH
I want to talk about the positive things that we discovered. I also want to say a few cautionary things and to finish with a warning or two. One positive thing is that we discovered a huge amount of participation. We say in our report:
"Our broadest conclusion from the very wide range of evidence sessions that we have held is that the period since the middle 1990s has seen an explosion of interest in involving the public more frequently, more extensively, and in much more diverse ways in the conduct of decision-making within the public services."
There has been an explosion of participation, some of it extremely encouraging to those of us who have been pursuing this holy grail for so many years. For me, the most striking moment of our inquiry came during a visit to the north-east some months ago. We sat in the board meeting of a sure start project. Sure start is a great Government initiative that sought to involve community and user representatives in its organisation. At the board meeting, one single parent said that it was the first time that anyone had ever listened to her. That is what it is all about. It is important that such a person, who thinks that she is taken for granted and never listened to, has a voice and can contribute to the policy and decision-making process.
When public participation works, it works well, and we should celebrate this initiative. We should celebrate all the forms in which public participation is already possible. For many years, I was involved in training school governors. There are about 300,000—more than a quarter of a million—school governors at work in our schools. Those people must be celebrated because they do work in the public interest and they need far more support than we give them. We take them for granted and lay many obligations on them, but they are models of public involvement. I am glad that the Government are trying to spread the participatory model across the board.
There are now far more opportunities to participate. New technologies allow people new ways of participating, which we should explore. That is mentioned in the report. The report also welcomes the new initiatives and the Government's improvements to their methods of consultation. Consultation used to be a dirty word or a joke, and people thought that it was merely a statutory process. Now, through the efforts of the Cabinet Office, there has been some attempt to establish a system and to ensure that all public organisations follow a serious and co-ordinated process of consultation. We welcome the fact that, through the new deal for communities and in many other ways, the public are being brought into the decision-making process. We welcome the long-overdue initiative to develop citizenship education in schools. It is a scandal that, in terms of basic civic education, we have lost a generation.
Vernon Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that many schools, including the school where I was a teacher, try to offer political and civic education? A deeper question for us is how to make that civic and political education effective. That presents a real challenge to which we must give a great deal of thought.
Tony Wright: I am grateful for that intervention. I feel as if I am revisiting my past, as, I suspect, do other hon. Members. When I used to work in adult education, I

323WH
remember writing about political literacy and arguing how important it was. We have wasted a generation, both in schools and beyond schools. Some 20 years ago, we knew how to deliver civic education. Some good materials were produced for civic education in schools; unfortunately, there was resistance to the idea.
Over the years, I have taken part in exchanges on the subject in the Chamber. The previous Government told us that civic education would be ideological propaganda. We could not get the message across that equipping people with some basic civic tools when they left school would mean that they would know how society worked, who took the decisions, and what they could do about things. Such an ideological blockage seems extraordinary. Other countries do not suffer it, but we did. We are now having to catch up, and we are paying a huge price as a result. That is why I welcome the positive initiatives that are taking place, but we want to build on them.
I shall quickly mention a few matters in our report on which we sound a cautionary note. We say that many initiatives need to be better co-ordinated, so that they are all pointing in the same direction instead of going off at different angles. We believe that the Cabinet Office is best placed to do that. We sound a warning about the explosion of what might be called official participation; almost every public programme has participation built into it—for example, it is central to the best value revolution in local government. That is to be welcomed, and it is having a good effect. The danger is that regarding the activity as a statutory hoop that has to be jumped through will devalue it. If it is an obligatory ritual, it will not achieve what was intended.
Brian White: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is exactly what has happened to the planning process? People go through the routine of making objections, but it does not affect the planning process, hence the need for the Green Paper, which is to be published shortly. That is what can happen to a good form of consultation.
Tony Wright: I agree with my hon. Friend. It can produce cynicism if people believe that the process is merely something that has to happen; they almost become bit players in the process, arriving at decisions that are already made. It is crucial that we get it right. I emphasise the importance of people knowing that their participation is for real, and that it can affect the outcome. We should not allow public sector managers simply to tick a box to say that they have done the participation bit; participation should contribute to the decision-making process. If it does not, we will genuinely undercut all the good things that are happening.
We have sounded some cautionary notes. We also issue some warnings. I want to go beyond the Committee's report, but I am probably not entitled to do so. The rise in official participation cannot compensate or substitute for the wider civic disengagement that is taking place. We cannot say that the officially sponsored participation that is now going on all over the place will somehow offset the evidence of a larger civic disengagement. It is not true, and we need
324WH
to resist the idea. Similarly, the Committee argues that the new methods of participation—they include some wonderful techniques, such as citizens' juries and deliberative polling—cannot substitute for the decline in traditional electoral participation, because it is in electoral participation that public interest eventually has to be defined, negotiated and thrashed out. Other forms of participation will enable sections of society to put their points of view and express their interests, but it is through the formal political process and elections that public interest must somehow be decided.
People do not like political parties or politicians, and who can blame them? That comes through as the consistent theme of the evidence. However, we have to define as a society what public interest is through political parties, politicians and elections. It is through those that we have to aggregate all the sectional interests and come up with some view of the common good. Although people say that our society is alive with protest—there are animal rights people, fuel protesters and endless others involved in varieties of modern protest—that has nothing to do with an engagement in defining a public interest. Such people are engaged in trying to express a specific interest. Both aims are legitimate, but they are not the same. The fact that we have trouble with one cannot be substituted for by saying that the other is taking place.
There is special interest at the moment in the decline in electoral participation. We warned about it in our report before the general election, saying that what was taking place was no mere cyclical trend but something more important. We said that some evidence suggested that turnout in the general election might be as low as 60 per cent., and indeed it came down to 59 per cent. That is the lowest turnout in any general election since 1918, when universal suffrage began in its modern form. Some would argue that it was probably the lowest turnout ever in our country, given the circumstances in 1918.
The situation is even worse in local government. The average turnout is about 29 per cent., which shows a massive disengagement in the local political process on the part of the population.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear me say that I agree with much of what he has said. I encourage him to suggest to the Committee some further work on the narrow part of the subject that we are discussing. It is time now for the Committee or some other body in the House to study seriously the merits of compulsory voting.
Tony Wright: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will make some remarks on that subject in a moment.
Many explanations have been made for the collapse in local and national participation, and I shall not detain hon. Members by listing them all. They range from universal contentment to universal discontent, and we could take our pick. Some seem more useful than others. On the whole, people vote more when elections matter more. If people think that an election does not matter, they will not vote. Evidence shows that there was a 10 per cent. higher turnout in the 100 most marginal seats than the 100 least marginal seats.

325WH
One of the most telling explanations was given in a letter that a gentleman—he was not a constituent of mine—sent to me the other day. People write to us to sound off and tell us what they think on various issues. He made a litany of complaints about his life. The health service was not working for him, there was crime in his neighbourhood and his neighbourhood was changing in character. He could list all kinds of things that were wrong with his life and with society. He ended by saying, "And you expect us to vote?" That was quite profound, because he really meant, "You expect me to bestow legitimacy on you when you are not making my life better."
This is not a narrow partisan political point. I am talking in a rather general way. If people feel that politicians are not making their lives better, and that they can do nothing about their circumstances, the act of voting becomes a legitimising act that they are not prepared to bestow on the system. They were prepared to do that, perhaps, when they were motivated by civic duty and thought that they simply had to vote. However, such people are disappearing. We must put the argument to new kinds of people who will vote and legitimise the system only if they think that it is doing enough for them.
There are many explanations and, to come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), many suggested remedies. I shall not discuss those except to say that some are quack remedies. Some confuse symptoms with causes. One could respond, when people stop going to church, by making church attendance compulsory and locking people up if they did not go. That would be one way of dealing with the rise of secularism and the decline of organised religion, but it would be pretty stupid and would not work. Taking the view that people should be made to vote is a similar approach. It identifies not the problem but its consequence or symptom.
Other people advance other propositions. There are no panaceas, but a more plausible answer is to consider different voting systems. No doubt other hon. Members will want to comment on that issue. There is evidence that systems of voting other than first past the post lead to higher turnouts. That is true internationally and seems to be true here.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend think that people have a responsibility to vote? One can be frustrated with the health service with crime in one's neighbourhood, to use the two examples that he gave from the letter that he received. Someone wrote to me about animal experimentation and hunting and made the same point about compulsory voting. However, do citizens not have a responsibility to cast their judgment on those who seek to lead them and to make decisions here in Parliament?
Tony Wright: I have no problem with that principle. I am as firmly signed up to the idea of civic duty as anyone. However, I do not think that one can legislate for it. To do so is likely to be counterproductive. It is necessary to find another route to civic duty and virtue. It is not true that passing a law will somehow produce civic virtue.
Mr. Thomas: We legislate with respect to civic duty all the time. We require people to pay taxes even though they may not like the way in which they are spent. The duty to go to the polling station once every five years is, to be sure, much less of an imposition than many others.
Tony Wright: Let me try another argument on my hon. Friend. I have a sense that if one were to tell the disenchanted British public, who did not much want to go to the polling station, "Thou shalt go, on pain of penalty," it would make our relationship with the electorate worse, not better. That is my judgment and my hon. Friend may agree.
Other people come to the issue from a different angle, and, in a sense, I am more interested in their arguments. They say that we should reward civic virtue, not punish civic vice. They say that we should reward those who exhibit civic virtue and a sense of civic duty by, for example, knocking £20 off their council tax. They say that there should be inducements to be virtuous. I am not saying that I have signed up to that idea, but I am more attracted to it than to arguments from the other angle.
There is more interest in the voting system approach, and there is more evidence to support it. I cannot understand why the Government will not—at least at the local level, where the situation is far worse—encourage experiments with different ways of voting. I do not mean that people should vote in supermarkets or at different hours, but that local authorities should try different electoral systems. We would probably learn that we could increase turnout and encourage people to engage far more in local government. I want the Government to go down that route.
The last sentence in the report reads:
"It is not enough to lament the decline in electoral participation; the challenge is to reverse it".
I do not have time to develop the point, but the British have a problem in that regard. There are problems with levels of interest, engagement and turnout everywhere, but the British have a particular problem with engaging in politics. We live in a top-down political culture. We do not expect much of people, other than that they should put a cross on a piece of paper every four or five years. There has never been much civic energy or civic engagement. The United States has lousy turnouts, but, my God, people have civic energy. Everyone is always organising around a variety of issues, but we do not do that. The argument has always been that we need a Government who can govern and that we want top-down, strong government. We do not involve people very much and we have destroyed local government. We have not nourished forums for civic activity; we have let them wither, and we have paid a huge price.
Our political culture is hostile to extensive political participation. That shapes the way in which we go about politics in this country and in Parliament. Parliament is our central institution, but, I am afraid, it is a great turn-off. People simply turn away from it; they see the pantomime here and want nothing to do with it. They think, "If that's politics, it's not for us." We must be grown up about the issue. I am sorry that I have made my points in shorthand. There are larger arguments behind them.

327WH
The Government reply to our report was full of worthy and commendable comments. We felt, however, that they had not grasped the seriousness of what was going on. We therefore added some words of our own when we published the Government reply. We said:
"the situation has changed dramatically in the last few months as the crisis in public participation has deepened. The problem can be summed up in one stark statistic: 59 per cent.—the figure for the turnout in the June 2001 General Election. Not since the extension of the suffrage in 1918 has there been such a low level of participation in the electoral process. The reasons for it may be debated, but not its seriousness for our democracy. … We find it extraordinary that this collapse in electoral participation, put alongside other evidence on civic disengagement, has not been treated as a civic crisis demanding an appropriate response. Political life has simply continued as if nothing has happened. We believe that a Democracy Commission should be established as a matter of urgency to consider how this crisis can be responded to constructively and with imagination".
That is what I want to leave hon. Members with. It is not business as usual—this is a genuine civic crisis.
The Government should have responded officially to the collapse in electoral participation by immediately setting up a democracy commission to find out what was going on. That would have indicated that they thought that the matter was serious and wanted to find out what was wrong with our democracy and to do something about it. We do not have John Stuart Mill to put in charge of such a commission, so I suggest that Billy Bragg would be the man. If the Government are not going to act—if there is not to be an official enterprise—then something should be done unofficially.
The response that we have had as a result of raising the issue has been interesting. A number of organisations have said to me, "This is a very good idea; what can we do about it?" I hope that a non-governmental consortium of public interest groups will come together to set up a commission and take the matter forward. It might conclude, rather as Bertolt Brecht did, that the real job is to elect a new people. However, I suspect that it will conclude that the problem is closer to home.
3 pm
Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) on his speech and on bringing the matter before us. I very much related to his opening remarks, when he said that many of us felt as though we had been here before. I began to wince when he referred to the 1960s, "when we were students". I should like to put it on record that I was not a student in the 1960s, but if he had referred to the 1970s I would have owned up. I notice that during that exchange, the Minister was looking superior. In case he did not hear me, I was complimenting the Minister on his youth.
The report raises some of the most important issues that we have to deal with as parliamentarians, addressing not just our ability to do our jobs, but—as my hon. Friend rightly says—our legitimacy in doing those jobs. I welcome the way in which the Committee has tackled it, and many of its recommendations. Some people say that low turnout, whether in local, national or European elections, is either a sign that everybody is
328WH
happy or a sign of apathy—that large numbers of people are just not interested in the issues that politics is meant to be about. Both of those analyses show a worrying complacency. Democracy works only if citizens feel engaged in the political process.
In my experience, particularly of speaking to young people, among whom low turnouts are a great problem, there is no evidence that people are not interested in the issues. They are exceptionally interested, and very willing to talk about jobs, the health service, the future of the environment and the opportunities for them and their children. They have a great wish to become involved. However, they are sceptical about the political process—or what they see as political arguments with a capital P; those made by politicians. They see them reported on television, or they read about them in the newspapers. They are sceptical about whether we reflect their concerns and are interested in the issues, at least in a way that affects their daily lives.
It is vital that we take a good, hard look at ourselves, at what we do, at the way in which we do it, and at how we can improve our connection with the people whom we represent. I should like to consider a couple of aspects of that.
First, I hope that we do not establish no-go areas before we start—areas for discussion that are out of bounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is not in his place now, is an advocate of compulsory voting. I disagree; the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase were persuasive. However, we should have the debate about it—why not?
In their response to our report, the Government sanction local government to experiment with new arrangements for how people vote, where they vote and the times that they vote. I welcome that; it is very important. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase on one matter. My heart sank when I read the following in the Government's response to the Committee's report:
"Local authorities now have power to experiment with different voting arrangements at local government elections. These can cover when, where and how voting can take place and how votes are counted, though not the system of voting itself."
If we are serious about considering causes and solutions, why should we not consider the system of voting?
It is well known that I support electoral reform and more proportional voting arrangements at Westminster and in local government, which would allow greater openness of political debate and greater creativity between and within political parties. I know that others disagree with that, and they are entitled to do so, but why can we not have the debate? Why can we not try something different in a chosen local authority area and see what happens? I have said that a change could increase connection. Is that rubbish, or could it make for a healthier democracy? It is rather strange that, when we want to examine why there is disconnection, we insist on uniformity in local government voting systems. Will the Minister think about that issue and refer to it in his reply? The Government's response to the report seems somewhat illogical in saying that voting systems are out of bounds. However, whether it is logical or not, it is wrong. If we want to consider how to re-engage people, those areas should not be off limits.

329WH
When we consider local electoral arrangements, we should consider the House of Commons, too. Our manifesto promised a review of how Members of Parliament were elected. I think that we should get on with that review, which should be open and accountable, and receive evidence from people with as wide a range of interests in civil society as possible. We do not have to start from scratch, because the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are seizing that nettle and finding out what can happen by actually doing something. Why is that such a problem for the House of Commons?
Even though it is often not linked to public participation, the debate on which we are about to embark on the future of the second Chamber is relevant to how we may encourage participation. All too often, the future of the House of Lords is discussed as if it were a purely parliamentary issue. The sides are often drawn up between those who say that, if we have a second Chamber, it must have democratic legitimacy to scrutinise the actions of the Commons, and those who say that the second Chamber must not undermine the democratic legitimacy of the Commons and its ability to put through the legislative programme on which Members of Parliament are democratically elected. Those issues are important. but all too often the people left out of that discussion are the public. All too often, the debate consists of one set of parliamentarians arguing about their relationship with another set of parliamentarians. Perhaps we should start to look at those matters the other way round.
If we need a second Chamber to scrutinise the decisions of the lower House, should we not first consider how we can make scrutiny in our House more effective? Perhaps there are ways in which we can ensure better accountability to, and scrutiny by, the people who elect us, by making our proceedings more transparent and fashioning new local dialogue between MPs and constituents.
What we end up with will be light years better than the anachronistic hereditary principle. One remote institution scrutinising another is not the best way forward. We must be bolder in reforming the House of Commons. Recent modernisation measures have made more progress than ever, but we have only begun to scratch the surface. As I said about the voting system, we should not consider anything off limits.
I regret missing the speeches made yesterday in the Chamber by my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is to be congratulated on having the courage to ask whether we need a greater separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature. That is an important issue because executive and legislative functions are different. We would do democracy a service by accepting that and adopting reforms to help Parliament exercise its role as legislature, and the Government theirs as Executive.
If we are to strengthen the connection between the political process and people, we must consider the regions. The regional dimension has already taken off in some UK nations—Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—but it must do so in England too. That process is often perceived as a way of making local government functions more strategic, which is entirely wrong. If we want politics to be closer to people, we must make it
330WH
clear that regional politics is about devolving power from Westminster and Whitehall, not clotting together the power of local authorities. If regions want assemblies, we should let them get on with it. We must avoid over-prescription and develop new ways of working. I hope that we do not develop a regional version of what we do nationally and what local authorities do in towns, cities or boroughs.
Earlier, I criticised part of the Government's response to the Public Administration Committee's report. However, one part of their response made a telling point:
"A healthy civil society, needed to underpin effective public participation, also means a healthy and engaged voluntary and community sector. Voluntary and community organisations offer a unique opportunity for people to articulate and tackle common interests and needs, and so develop forums for debate…which give people the skills for negotiation, persuasions, open-mindedness and self-organisation which are crucial to a healthy democratic culture."
That is absolutely right. My wife works in the voluntary sector. One day we compared our roles because, as politicians, we like to polish our democratic badges. We often refer to what our constituents tell us almost as if we had visited every one of them and knew exactly what they were saying. We say that because we feel that we were elected to our jobs and we have a great democratic legitimacy, and to some extent, we do.
My wife and I compared, on a day-to-day level, who had more accountability and who had more connections with life in the community in which we live, which was an interesting exercise. I do not think that I am a bad Member of Parliament or that I am less diligent than other people, but if elected politicians make such comparisons and do the sums about numbers of people, we do not always come out too well.
If we are to tackle the public disconnection from political institutions, we elected politicians need to recognise that although we are an important part of political life, we do not have a monopoly on it. That is why I very much related to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said about his discussions in the north-east with a woman who was involved with sure start. That made the point well.
It is good to see that people in some areas of conventional political life are starting to address the issue. For instance, in the next week or so, there will be a constitutional convention in Birmingham. It will be set up, organised and promoted by the city council to consider the engagement between the conventional political process and the myriad community organisations, voluntary sector organisations and strategic partnerships that are taking off. My hon. Friend is right: there has been an explosion of such partnerships. We need to make sense of that and to work out how they can mesh together. Again, when we try to bring things together, let us not impose a straitjacket on such organisations that prevents them from making their contribution.
All too often, we go for neatness. When establishing partnerships, we too often make their boundaries the same as those of the ward, because we understand wards—they are the constituencies of councillors. However, wards do not necessarily reflect community identity. In Birmingham, that is absolutely the case.

331WH
Wards are made up of between 17,000 and upwards of 20,000 people. When considering how to fashion local organisations, we need to be prepared to be flexible and to ensure that political structures relate to community structures, rather than try to shoehorn the community's feelings into things that we find convenient. That will not work.
If we can acknowledge those issues, we may stand a greater chance of helping people to fashion new political forums from neighbourhood level upwards—whether they be in the community or on-line—that will help us to achieve the important initiatives and to address the important issues that the Select Committee has brought to our attention today.
The idea of a democracy commission is imaginative. We need to hone aspects such as its functions and its establishment, but the matter is urgent and I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration.
3.18 pm
Vernon Coaker: The speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) have raised fundamental issues. The most important points are that nothing should be off limits and that the proportions of the crisis should not be underestimated. In introducing the report, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, the Chairman of the Select Committee, was right to use the term "crisis". We often use that word inappropriately, but the level of disaffection and disconnection from the political process that is reflected in voter turnout and in other ways simply cannot be ignored, nor can its importance be underestimated.
The Committee and its Chairman are to be congratulated on producing the report and giving us the opportunity to have this debate. As has been said, the turnout in 2001 was low at 59 per cent., but when we consider that it was the lowest since 1918, and that it was down from 71 per cent. in 1997, we realise that it is a phenomenal and staggering figure.
3.19 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.35 pm
On resuming—
Vernon Coaker: As I was saying, this debate is important. We must recognise and deal with the low turnout and the level of apathy that that signifies. The turnout at the 2001 general election was, at 59 per cent., the lowest since 1918. The document "Social Indicators" in the Library provides a more detailed breakdown of the figures. Men are shown to be marginally more likely to vote than women. Fewer than four in 10 of 18 to 24-year-olds voted—a troubling figure—compared with seven in 10 of over-65s.
More than two thirds of the relatively affluent social classes A and B voted, compared with not much more than half of classes D and E. Turnout was also relatively low among the unemployed, private sector workers and
332WH
those renting private accommodation. Another worrying figure is that three in five white adults voted compared with only 46 per cent. of non-white British citizens. Those figures are interesting, but troubling. They show that something is wrong, particularly with respect to young people, marginalised groups and ethnic communities. We must try to explain why that is and what can he done about it.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase and for Birmingham, Northfield have already pointed out the contradiction between the level of interest in politics and the level of interest in decisions that truly affect people. People feel passionately about controversies in their own communities, the building of schools, the shutting down of services and so forth. Animal rights, aid and development, the environment and other national and international issues engage people. Those of us who visit schools, places of work or who talk to community groups know how passionately people feel about such matters. People are interested, knowledgeable and able to argue their points of view. Yet when it comes to voting, many of the same people who are passionate about bringing about better government or a better world do not bother. That is most worrying.
We must be honest. The Government, local authorities and public bodies will say that they often propose initiatives to involve people. The education White Paper and various other Bills highlight the role of consultation. Councils and other public bodies consult on many issues, yet we are still unable to crack the nut.
Brian White: Is one of the reasons why people do not engage in consultation that they do not believe that the final policy will reflect their input? Is lack of transparency the cause of the problems?
Vernon Coaker: That is absolutely right. Consultation takes place, but people do not feel that they can affect the outcome. We must build confidence in consultation processes so that people feel that their opinion is listened to and taken into account, and not just included in a report. It must be seen that the opinion that they have expressed influences or changes the decision that is made.
If all public consultation means—as my hon. Friend for Cannock Chase has said—is that a box is ticked, and if it does not mean that local people influence decisions or the Government, it will make not one scrap of difference to how people feel about the political system. In fact, it will make their feelings worse because the cynicism that is engendered will increase.
Mr. Mark Oaten: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is a contradiction. Occasionally, when referendums are held—something in which the public definitely have a binding influence on the outcome—there are still low turnouts.
Vernon Coaker: That challenges all of us, but my point is that there has been a breakdown in trust and in terms of people feeling engaged in the political process, even when such opportunities are offered, because they feel that we are going through a cosmetic or hollow exercise. Even though we may, now and again, give the

333WH
public something that is not hollow or cosmetic, they feel disengaged from the process and cynical about it. The problem for us is how we reconnect people with the political process. The report talks about easier voting procedures with longer polling hours, and such matters are important. Indeed, the regulations for easier postal voting have made a significant difference, as I know from my own experience. The changes are not to be sniffed at, but they may not be sufficient on their own.
On the question of how we get more people to vote, it is important for us to re-enter the discussion about the importance of voting. At elections, people make a choice about the sort of Government or council they want. We need to start restating that fact, and the importance of civic duty, whether that is by compulsory voting—which I personally do not favour—or not. We have to persuade people of the importance of voting.
We need to empower people, yet too much is being done to them. We talk about the devolution of power, yet on regeneration boards, youth committees or youth councils, the partnership that is talked about means a token position for someone as member of the board, or there is token consultation. No real power is given to those individuals; no real power is given to the people.
If people do not have real power or a real say, why should they engage? Why should people go to a meeting if they feel that they are not influencing it and are just being tokenistic? There is an element of risk, and we have to trust our local communities. They may get it wrong, but that is a price worth paying if we re-energise the political process locally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield spoke about voting systems. Nothing should be off the agenda, and I passionately feel that we should seriously consider reducing the voting age to 16. It is an anomaly that young people can work, have sexual relationships, pay their taxes, get married and be put in prison, but cannot vote. Newspaper photographs recently showed a 17-year-old on HMS Illustrious who was going out to the Gulf. That young person was in the process of putting her life at risk on board a ship, yet she cannot vote. I find that incredible and totally indefensible. In the great debate about voting and public participation, we should look at reducing the voting age to 16.
We also need to be more radical about councils. Why cannot councils set up youth councils? I am talking about parallel committees, made up of young people who are elected, have a budget for which they are accountable and deliver decisions and policies within their local communities. Why cannot we do that? Why is it that as soon as we get an element of risk in terms of public participation, we back off and point out all the problems? We had a youth parliament here, which met in February this year and will meet again. It has local youth councils. But why did it meet only once?
Why cannot we be radical? We are talking about public participation. Why not generate excitement? Why not generate enthusiasm? Why not generate a fresh way of looking at things? Why cannot we have a youth parliament that sits all the time, parallel to us, with real power to influence and advise us? If we want to re-engage people in the political process, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield said, nothing must be off limits. Some ideas may be silly and
334WH
impractical, but let us engage in the debate and the argument so that we can regenerate and rejuvenate our democracy at both a local and national level in a way that will raise public participation.
We need to restate the case for our democracy. We need to restate the importance of democracy as something more than just going to the ballot box and turning up at elections, important though that is. Democracy means a range of other things, including having the power to influence decisions. People are disconnected from the political process and from us because they do not feel that they influence the decisions that affect their lives.
As a grown-up Parliament, we must understand why people feel powerless and disconnected from the process, and we must give them back that power so that they can take decisions that affect their communities, their jobs and their livelihoods. If we cannot do that, we can have good debates about public participation, but it will be very difficult for us to raise the levels of voter turnout and to reconnect people to Parliament. The fundamental reason why people are disconnected is that they feel they are powerless and that decisions are being taken for them, rather than with them.
3.48 pm
Brian White: As a member of the Select Committee, I found much of the evidence from witnesses informative and innovative. There are many useful things in the report, including a practical way forward for the Government—should they wish to take it—to build on many of the recommended innovations. We should not confuse voter turnout with public participation. One is an event; the other is a process. Both are important, but they are quite separate and should be treated as such.
I should like to touch on a few implications for the Government and then talk about Parliament. The lesson of the report is that we should look at how our institutions run. A cultural change is needed, not a policy change. For example, when the Government were first elected, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—the then Minister for Science, Energy and Industry—wanted to set up a group of Back-Bench Members who had recent experience of technology and science. However, civil servants would not release papers to those Back-Bench Members and the initiative folded. Only advice from or filtered through civil servants was allowed to go to Ministers.
We need a cultural change if we are to have a plurality of views. That filtering process endangers our democracy and it should not continue. Another feature that emerged from the report was the fact that an awful lot of consultation consists of the same people talking to one another. There is a great danger of our not reaching out. We carry out the same consultations with the same voluntary and national groups and with the great and the good. We rarely get to the real people. We are in danger of deluding ourselves that we have real consultation when all we have is a sham that needs to be exposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned some of the points that I was going to make on people's feelings that they are not involved in decision-making, and on the need for the loop to be

335WH
closed. There is a lack of evidential decision making in all parties at all levels. The Performance and Innovation Unit and the report have shown that we need much more focus on evidence and that consultation is not a one-off event. Consultation needs to be built into the process at the beginning, during the valuation of policy, during the implementation and during the review, and on to the next course of action.
The report clearly showed that, as a Parliament and a Government, we do not review well what we do. We are good at creating new legislation, at responding and at creating new forms of governance, but we are not particularly good at reviewing coherently our initiatives. We can learn in that regard from local government innovations. Birmingham city council was a classic example of a change in working methods, and its way of governing itself gave us good and useful lessons.
Much is happening in the Government and local government, but it is not always coherent. The report gave examples of good—sometimes very good—practice. Many people changed their way of working because it was the fashion; they thought, "Oh, everyone else is doing it and we had better do it," without fully understanding why the changes were necessary. A range of practices were not thought about at all. We must ask fundamental questions, such as the purpose of consultation and participation, rather than just assuming that it is a magical holy grail.
The way in which we report politics also creates problems of participation. Media reporting is destructive. It is easy to get on to the media; I just have to criticise the Government. However, that is not the best way of taking forward political debate. We do not recognise a plurality of views, and that is one reason for voter disengagement. One has to be either 100 per cent. with the Government or opposed to them. Shades of opinion or emphasis do not exist. We need plurality of participation.
As was said earlier, the report also, and rightly, highlights the implications for Parliament. Debates in the Chamber are available online the next day on BBC Parliament, but there is no facility for interaction. The Committee report is the basis of our debate. What is wrong with having a coherent summary of a forum that occurred two or three days earlier, so that our debates are informed by the input of people's views?
There are several ways of doing things. The report on Select Committees was published in March and recommended the reform of the Committee web pages. It is now almost December and nothing has happened. That is an indication that the pace of change in the House is a problem. Our Committee had moderated consultation. Every Select Committee should have an online forum when producing a report so that people can contribute to it. The Select Committee can set questions and assess the responses. I am not suggesting that Members do that themselves, but there should be a moderated way of consultation that does not just involve oral and written evidence. In Standing Committees, we are not allowed to use personal digital assistants, and cannot access information using laptop computers. Those innovations should be introduced into Parliament.
336WH
There is an assumption that the parties should not engage in the process and that, with the creation of primary care trusts, learning skills councils and other bodies, we must have a commissioner to make appointments. We are supposed to take the party-political element out of the process and assume that if we were all reasonable, sat around a table and were neutral, without any political ideology, there would be reasonable participation. The dissociation of party politics from the decision-making process is part of the problem. We should not have "You're right, you're wrong" politics; we should return to coherent political discussions in which we recognise that there is more than one way of achieving objectives.
The appointment process does not allow for the fact that people do not have the time that they once did to sit in a committee meeting all evening. There must be other ways of encouraging people to participate in organisations, apart from sitting in committees. Frankly, the same things are said in meeting after meeting, and not much is achieved. The assumption must be challenged that the way forward is to have committees.
The report said that there is often a lack of definition about consultation. We do not know why we are having that consultation, but we believe that it is a good idea. There are no clear boundaries to the consultation, which causes frustration. We should recognise that and the need to change the ownership of the process.
Consultation is not passive, as we have assumed, and should be part of engaging in politics, including campaigning. It should be part of the implementation of politics, and of solutions. We have not won the argument for public services. If we had, the privatisations of the 1980s would not have taken place. Participation is about taking the debate forward at all times; it is not an academic exercise in which evidence is received and judicially weighed up. It is a question of engaging in a political process, and that is the fundamental lesson of the innovations mentioned in the report.
One innovation was the Milton Keynes referendum, in which the participation rate was more than 40 per cent. People voted for a 10 per cent. increase in council tax. The referendum was not held simply to find out what the people of Milton Keynes thought, but to have their backing so that the Government could not cap the local authority if it introduced the increase that was needed to keep services going. That was a clear act of going to the people and asking them to endorse a strategy. As in other local authority areas, those people could easily have said that they did not endorse the strategy and that the increase should be 5 per cent. That was a clear way of engaging with the local population and ensuring that they were part of the process.
The statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the national health service is a good start to the debate. However, I will make a suggestion to the Government that they may find interesting, or brave. Why not have a referendum on 7 May 2002 on whether people want the NHS to be funded by taxation, social insurance or privatisation? If we put that to the people, we would get massive backing for an NHS that was free at the point of delivery and was funded out of general taxation. That is the right way forward, and if the

337WH
Government were to hold that referendum, we would get a massive turnout in the local elections next May and an endorsement of the current health service strategy.
If the Government wanted to propose a 1p or 2p increase in taxation to fund the NHS, they should put that on the ballot paper and get an endorsement from the people. That would engage the public. There would be a fundamental argument about whether we wanted public services in this country, and we would see a reinvigoration of British politics. The Government would win such a referendum; we would see massive backing for the NHS and the extra funding to support it.
This is a process, not an event, and consultation and participation should be seen in that context. The system should be inclusive and not "one size fits all". The report highlighted the patchy landscape, but it is incumbent on the Government to tell the authorities and parts of Government that are not taking the subject seriously to do so, and to use the many examples of best practice to ensure greater participation. The language that we use in this place, by government and in our consultation documents does not relate to language in the real world. We must re-engage people on their terms, not ours.
4.1 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: As a Select Committee member, I will concentrate on the experience that I gained in my political life as a councillor, a political organiser and a Member of Parliament. I liken our recent experience of public participation to that of an alarm clock; people tend to keep pressing the snooze button until they finally get the wake-up call. We finally had the wake-up call in June, when we had, as has been mentioned, the lowest turnout since 1918. We must act on that.
I will concentrate first on my experiences in local government. I was first elected in 1980. During the ensuing years up to 1997, when. I was elected to this place, I could see that power was gradually being taken away from the local authorities and transferred to unelected quangos. There was a lack of interest, and people were not getting involved in local politics. That transmitted itself to the general electorate, and many people were no longer aware of who provided services.
I can give some examples. Some 15 to 20 years ago, we had a department of the Highways Agency in my town, where people could visit when they had problems. Cuts meant that it was moved about 30 miles away, and inquiries are now made by a telephone call. That intervention has taken the personal contact away, and the same could be said about local police and fire stations, which were taken away throughout the same period. An element of democracy was taken away from the general public with them, and the Government seemed to be taking away some of powers and decision-making processes from local people and their communities.
Moving on to my experiences as an organiser, back in 1983, we worked on the basis of always concentrating on our support. We could put the electorate into different categories: those who never voted; those who only voted in general elections; those who always voted for an Opposition party; those who always voted for our party; and those who decided on the day. We never did anything with that information apart from try to
338WH
concentrate on our own supporters. As a political organisation, we must take some of the blame for the lack of participation in elections. We never tried to find out why those people never participated in elections, specifically local elections. We could only surmise.
However, I am glad that, during the past few years, there has been more dissemination of information to the general public. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) mentioned sure start and our visit to Newcastle, and we have had similar experiences in Great Yarmouth. People feel valued when they take decisions. We pass the money down and they determine how it is spent, within certain parameters. That can only be a good experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned the younger generation. From my contacts with them during the last three or four years—either youngsters paying school visits to Parliament or during my visits to schools—I have found that they feel disfranchised. They do not feel a part of the system. I try to encourage them to participate wherever possible and to encourage them to communicate through me.
For too long, as elected representatives, we have believed that we represent only those people who have a right to vote. We represent everybody. I think education is partly to blame and I can use my own experiences at school as an example; the only politics that I was taught at school was civics, which was about the history of kings and queens. It was not about the parliamentary or local government systems and the effect that they have on our lives.
Youth councils were also mentioned. When I visit schools, I try to encourage people to start their own youth organisations within the school, and many are doing this. I also try to encourage them to have their own representatives from each school on a youth council, where they have their own elections and their own debates. They participate in mock elections, and elect a youth parliament. We should encourage many more youngsters to participate at that level.
We should reduce the voting age to 16. We expect people to go to fight for the country at the age of 16 or 17, pay taxes and do everything else that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has mentioned, but we do not accept that they have the experience to vote in elections. These anomalies have gone on for far too long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) talked about the responsibility of the press. The electorate looks to their views. I can understand the concerns of the general public over the past few years following the stories about sleaze and other issues. However, I get frustrated when it is widely reported in the press that Members of Parliament have voted themselves a two-and-a-half-day week and, later on, that we apparently have voted ourselves a four-day week. They cannot make up their mind.
I know from my work load that this is certainly a full-time job and I hope that my constituents recognise that as well. When one goes into politics, there is only time for that job if one wants to do it properly. I would find it difficult to do two or three jobs, whether a directorship or otherwise, and I want to concentrate completely on my constituents. I hope that they recognise that fact.

339WH
On different voting options, I would need to be persuaded to have anything other than the first-past-the-post system. We messed about with the European elections in the past two years and that was disastrous, as it took away local accountability from the European Members of Parliament; the electoral process left a lot to be desired. We must look at trying to encourage people to participate but we must examine all the avenues.
I do not accept that compulsory voting would work. If we have to resort to compulsory voting and threats of fines or imprisonment, we will have failed the country and ourselves. I hope that we will not take that approach.
My final point is about the consultation process. A recent consultation in my constituency was on the serious issue of dualling one of our dangerous roads. The problem has existed for 20 or 30 years; finally, in 1998, the Government agreed to a road study. The question went out for consultation, which was fine. The consultation document was issued, and I asked for people's views. People responded, albeit in small numbers. The consultant's decision, which came out a few weeks ago, was that the road would not be dualled, but widened. However, in the intervening period, 20,000 names were added to a petition. In four and a half years, only that issue produced a mailbag of more than 3,000 letters. Of those, perhaps only two supported the consultant's view.
We held a public meeting with the consultant, at which about 350 or 400 people turned up to question the decision. People from all walks of life attended; business people, environmental campaigners, tourism industry operators and the general public, including people who have lived in the town or area all their lives. However, their experiences did not count for anything. The consultant behaved as if it were a paper exercise; people put their views forward, the consultant had carried out his public duty and this was what was to happen. I hope that will not happen in this case, but my experience is that it will.
If we want to respond to the public or to hold ourselves up as public servants who listen, we will in some instances have to admit that perhaps the public do know best, particularly if they feel as strongly about an issue as they do about the one to which I have referred. Perhaps they have answers to the problems. If we carry out consultations and encourage people to give their opinions, we must not simply treat the process as a paper exercise; we must take their views on board. It is not always the case that the experts or the politicians know best.
My final point is about the recommendation for the establishment of a democracy commission. I support that. There is a long overdue need to find out why people do not participate in local, parish or general elections. I support the Select Committee's report.
4.13 pm
Martin Linton: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) should be congratulated on securing the debate. He is particularly well qualified to introduce it, as the
340WH
Chairman of the Public Administration Committee. However, he has another qualification. I do not want to embarrass him, but I will. The table showing the largest falls in turnout in the last election is led by Regent's Park and Kensington, North, in London. No. 2 is Newport, East but Cannock Chase is in third place. I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend's turnout went down from 73 to 55 per cent.
Tony Wright: I am so glad that my new hon. Friend was able to join us today. What he says is true, but did he also spot that we were perhaps the only traditional Labour seat to increase the Labour share of the vote?
Martin Linton: I am happy to hear that. I made the point in jest because turnout in my constituency fell by a worrying amount. We all face that problem and are mystified by the low turnout in the last general election. My worst experience was that of talking to a voter at the bacon counter in Asda. She was secretary of a community action group on affordable housing—an issue on which I had achieved a result. I had succeeded in convincing the Minister to call in a planning application, which resulted in the construction of 156 affordable homes. One would have thought that she would feel that political action could provide a result. She warmly congratulated me on my re-election, but five minutes later she mentioned that she had been at her sister's and therefore unable to vote.
I return to the distinction between voter participation and turnout made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). It reminds me of an interesting story about the 1997 election related by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). In Wythenshawe, a ward called Benchill has two distinctions. Of 8,000 wards, it is No. 1 in the deprivation index for the entire country, and had a 12 per cent. turnout in the local elections of the same year. Some may have preconceptions about the people who live in that ward and their motivation. However, a few weeks after the elections a ballot was held on a housing transfer in the ward, and the turnout was 80 per cent. It is not the case that a certain type of person does not vote: we must look for a different explanation. People must be able to identify a connection between the process of voting and changes that affect them.
The report is valuable because it focuses on participation, and what motivates people to vote and to take part in the political process. If we can persuade people in wards like Benchill to take part in a housing transfer ballot, it challenges us—not them—to encourage them to participate in parliamentary and local government elections.
Not every part of this country had a low turnout at the last election. One constituency had an 81.3 per cent. turnout. It is worrying that the victor in the three constituencies with the highest turnout was Sinn Fein. They say that politics is a matter of life and death in Northern Ireland, and sometimes they say that even the dead vote, which may be a partial explanation for the high turnout. The top 14 turnouts at the last election were in Northern Ireland, which has only 17 constituencies. That is an astonishing figure, but what is the reason for it? People in Northern Ireland felt that

341WH
they had a lot to win or lose. They felt that voting would make a difference; that is the missing feeling in elections and political participation in the rest of the UK.
I do not want to repeat figures endlessly, but it is not only in parliamentary elections where the turnout went down—from 71 per cent. to 59.4 per cent. at the last elections. It has also decreased in local elections from an average of 41 per cent. between 1976 and 1996, to 29.6 per cent. at the last election. In the last two sets of European elections, turnout decreased from 36.5 per cent. to 24 per cent. The trend towards low turnout exists at all three levels.
Brian White: Does my hon. Friend accept that the cause of the high turnout in 1990 was the fact that local electors were faced with the poll tax?
Martin Linton: I am happy to have that pointed out, because it corroborates the hypothesis that the inclination to vote depends on the extent to which a person believes that their vote will change things. The international figures referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase show that voting systems affect turnout. They show that what is known as competitiveness has the biggest effect on voter turnout. Democracies are divided into those where the majority party gets more than 50 per cent. and it is a foregone conclusion which party will win, and those where the majority party receives less than 50 per cent. The United Kingdom would be in the latter category. The average turnout is 71 per cent. for competitive democracies and 61 per cent. for non-competitive ones—a 10 per cent. difference, according to how far ahead the largest party is. The biggest influence is whether the voter believes that his vote will make a difference.
In their response to the report, the Government said that they did not regard changes to the voting system as a panacea for the current weaknesses in local government. I would not want to present them as such, but it would be perverse if, when considering voter participation, one did not consider the issue of the voting system. I am sure that we still have a long way to go to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) of the importance of changes in the voting system.
Beyond competitiveness, systems are the biggest factor. The average turnout in all first-past-the-post countries is 58 per cent., very close to the turnout at the last UK general election. In countries that use the alternative vote—the system that the independent commission is proposing—it is 66 per cent. and in countries with proportional representation it is 67 per cent. There is a difference of almost 10 per cent. in the voting turnout, according to the voting system.
We must come to terms with the fact that the United Kingdom is way down the list in the international league table of voting turnouts. We are at Nos. 39 and 40. exactly level with Ireland. Above us, the Maldives is at No. 36, the Comoros Islands is at No. 37 and the Cape Verde Islands is at No. 38. Those figures are based on the turnout in the 20 years before 1997. With our latest election turnout, we shall be even further down that list. In western Europe, we were already 19th out of 25. I am sure that, with the fall that we have had recently, we shall now be near the bottom.
342WH
Voting systems make a difference. That becomes even more obvious when one considers the question of marginality. Marginal constituencies produce high turnouts. The highest turnouts after the Northern Ireland seats are, interestingly, for seats such as that of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). Other seats with high turnouts include some in which there have recently been by-elections, such as Eastwood, or Monmouth. It has been dinned into the electorates in those constituencies that every vote counts, because they have had close-fought by-elections, even if they have large majorities now.
Interestingly, Hexham is the Conservative seat with the highest turnout. It was not the most marginal in the recent election, but it was in 1997. People's perceptions and expectations were of a close fight in Hexham and that is why it appears at the top of the list for turnout, with more than 70 per cent. No one who examines a list of marginal seats can doubt for a moment that people vote mainly because they believe that the result is in doubt.
Mr. Oaten: It is important not only that each vote is seen to count, but that the political parties fight a long battle, engaging the voters for a prolonged period rather than just for the duration of the election campaign. That is another interesting factor.
Martin Linton: The expectations and perceptions of the voters and the behaviour of the parties are equally important. The high turnout in Winchester was not in the election that the hon. Gentleman won by two votes, but in the subsequent by-election and election in which people knew that they must vote, because they had realised that the previous result would have been different if their family had stayed at home and watched television.
If we turn the equation round and consider the constituencies that had the lowest turnout in the election, we find safe seats, which are at the opposite extreme. Liverpool, Riverside had a 34.1 per cent. turnout. Manchester, Central had little more, as did Glasgow, Shettleston and Glasgow, Maryhill. Lest anyone think that the phenomenon is limited to Labour-supporting constituencies, Kensington and Chelsea, which is one of the safest Conservative seats in the country, had the ninth lowest turnout at the election. The movement of people in those constituencies is significant, but the fact that they have in common is that they are all considered safe seats. That takes away the motivation to vote.
Another aspect of the problem is ease of voting. As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I did plenty of work in the previous Parliament to ensure that we did everything possible to make it easier for people to vote, in terms of early voting and postal voting. I was fortunate enough to move the amendment that changed the postal vote deadline to a week before polling day, which I am sure made a lot of difference to people during the election. We encouraged the Government, who eventually accepted our recommendations, to introduce many experiments in postal voting and flexibility of polling stations.
No one could say that turnout went up because of those improvements; on the contrary, it went down. However, among non-voters who were asked why they

343WH
did not vote, the reason most often given—by 21 per cent. of respondents—was that the polling station was too far away and too inconvenient. The second most often cited reason—given by 16 per cent.—was that they were away on election day. That difficulty could obviously be dealt with by better provision for early voting. Eleven per cent. said that they did not receive a polling card—the third most often cited reason. Only the fourth most often cited reason—given by 10 per cent. of respondents—was that they were not interested in politics.
People might think, as I do, that those reasons conceal a lack of interest in politics. None the less, ease of voting is important, although it will never be more than marginal and will be overwhelmed by other factors. Half of what needs to be done to make voting easier for people has been done. Within the context of those reasons, we should not dwell too long on ease of voting.
I should like to talk about compulsory voting, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned in the House on Tuesday and in an intervention today. Bizarrely, countries that have compulsory voting have only a 69 per cent. turnout, and those that do not have a 63 per cent. turnout. Of course, those figures measure turnout by percentage of the entire eligible population. In some countries with compulsory voting, 95 to 97 per cent. of the people registered vote, but many of those who should register do not do so. The process is not mechanical. One cannot make everyone vote simply by making it compulsory, because those who are inclined not to vote will not register, even though it is illegal not to do so.
My suggestion—I made it in the Home Affairs Committee and the same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase—is that, bizarre as it may seem, the best way to increase turnout would be to offer people an incentive to vote, such as £5 off council tax. That would be easy for electoral registrars to manage, as they would have both the council tax list and the voting register. My response to those who consider that idea cheap or unworthy is that one should not think of voting simply as a civic duty. We all regard it as a civic duty but it is also important to give legitimacy to an elected authority, whether it is a local authority or Parliament. We need people to vote. It is important for the legitimacy and authority of a local council that a high proportion of people take part in council elections. Just as it is important not to have a high refusal rate in opinion polls because that distorts the results, it is important to have a high turnout in a council election if people want a council that represents their views. If councils and councillors have an interest in achieving a high turnout, it does not seem unreasonable to give voters an incentive. As opinion pollsters sometimes give participants some small consideration, such as a book token, for stopping to answer a few questions, it should not be beneath the dignity of democracy to find a way to overcome the inconvenience of voting and to persuade people to vote.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there are turnout differentials between age groups? If so, the
344WH
effectiveness of the incentives chosen could be affected by such differentials. My perception is that there is a higher turnout among older people, but I do not know.
Martin Linton: Yes; there is indeed. I believe that at the most recent general election the abstention rate among 16 to 24-year-olds or 18 to 24-year-olds was 25 per cent. Those in the youngest voting age group are the most likely to abstain. I am not suggesting that young people should be given free tickets to a disco as an incentive, but it is even more in the interests of politicians than of voters that the number of people who vote should be increased. It is not enough for us to preach morality or civic duty; we must give people a good reason to vote.
One could argue for a long time about whether people have a duty to vote or whether it is in their interests, but we must recognise that people's attitudes to voting have changed over the past 30 years for one simple reason: there has been a voyage of discovery for voters. For example, tactical voting has arisen because although people used to think that they should vote for the party that they believed in, they gradually realised that, in many constituencies, it was a waste of time to vote for that party. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, they adapted their voting behaviour to the system. The same thing has happened with voter turnout. In many constituencies, people have observed over the years that voting is unlikely to make a difference. We should not be surprised that, following that voyage of discovery, voter turnout has plummeted, especially in seats that are regarded as safe.
There has been a move away from thinking in collective terms about a duty to vote and a move towards thinking in individual terms about whether going to the polling station is worth while. The problem is that voter turnout or lack of participation, like all problems, has many different causes. We can isolate different causes and reach any number of different conclusions but, of all the possible causes, few are under our control. One possibility may be political education. Citizenship will be in the curriculum in the next academic year, which may help in the long term. However, the one element that is overwhelmingly under our control is the voting system—in other words, the way in which people's wishes are translated into action.
The Government are wrong to say that voting systems are irrelevant to the debate. Although the voting system is no panacea, it is the one element of the equation that is under people's control. For instance, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) only 34.1 per cent. of people voted—barely one person in three. People knew that their vote was extremely unlikely to affect either the choice of a Member to represent the constituency or the re-election of a Labour Government.
When there is a double break in the causative link—the constituency is safe and the overall result of the election is hardly in doubt—it is not surprising that we have a problem with voter participation. Although it is important and worthy to consider the reasons for that, which must include alienation among the youth, why do we not grab hold of the most immediate and obvious reason and do something about it?
4.36 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: The debate has been enjoyable. Those who have listened to it might doubt whether there is a problem, because there seems to be an enormous amount of agreement. A number of progressive Members spoke my sort of language. I suspect that those hon. Members who are not present—one might describe them as more aggressive or less progressive—would take a different view. It was surprising and refreshing to hear arguments, not from the usual parties, in favour of proportional representation, and even an argument in favour of a penny on income tax. That was an unexpected bonus.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) has done a great deal of work on the Committee. I had great fun, but my participation rate was not as good as it should have been. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that his Committee has a major role in ensuring that that work is seen through in this Parliament. If the suggestion for a democracy commission does not run, perhaps the Committee can run with it and keep up the pressure, because important work needs to be done.
It is a crucial area, and there are no easy answers. However, one of the most important things that we have to do as politicians is to begin to restore trust—not only in ourselves as politicians but in the electoral process and the institutions that are meant to look after it. We have focused on elections as being the link between the public and decision makers. It is important to stress that public participation comes in a large number and range of forms. Yes, it includes elections, but the enormous amount of work carried out by voluntary groups has a great impact.
Last week on the Floor of the House, we debated the role of non-governmental organisations and how we could encourage individuals to take part in them. They, too, have an important role to play. Even attending a meeting of school governors or a school fund-raising fete is a form of public participation, as is making a formal objection on a planning issue. Participation comes in a range of guises. We should not be too downhearted because, although I have no figures to support it, the evidence is that many people take part in organisations that influence public decisions in one way or another. We may be failing as politicians because we assume that we are the only act in town, and that the only benchmark of public engagement is elections. But we would be fascinated by that thought, would we not?
Let me say a little about elections. The hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) highlighted the turnout in elections. I was thrilled to bits that, except in Northern Ireland, Winchester had the highest turnout in England; it was 72 per cent. I have no illusions about why that was. I managed to create a campaign that put fear into some people that it would be another close result. People were terrified that if they did not go out on polling day, the same thing would happen again. The result was an extremely high turnout. That taught me a lesson, because there was no apathy at all, and people knew that their vote mattered and came out in large numbers. I accept that Winchester has had high turnouts in the past, but people were certainly engaged in the process in June.
However, the crucial point that I tried to make in an intervention on the hon. Member for Battersea was that we are not simply talking about something that
346WH
happened in an election campaign of four or five weeks. All candidates like to suggest that they will do an excellent job as a Member of Parliament and that they have signed up to work hard for their constituents. From evidence that we have gathered by considering the 100 most marginal seats, we can see that sitting on a majority of two is the greatest motivation to make us do as we say that we will. Seats that are hotly contested do not produce the kind of hon. Members that exist in all parties, who simply sit back because they know that they will automatically get re-elected. If the election is fiercely contested, candidates will work extraordinarily hard for their constituents, which motivates individuals and restores their confidence in the electoral process.
Tony Wright: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea began a train of argument that prompts me to ask, is the conclusion of that argument that we should all pray for the revival of the fortunes of the Conservative party?
Mr. Oaten: The conclusion that I draw is that we should all pray for the continued growth of the Liberal Democrats. The serious conclusion, however, is that several factors are at work in marginal seats: politicians who work hard and engage to gain the trust of their constituents and Opposition parties who do the same thing. That creates a healthy democratic process, which, I suspect, does not happen in a vast number of safe seats.
It is not simplistic to suggest that the low turnouts are simply the result of apathy. The electorate will be engaged if their vote counts, so as a Liberal Democrat the simplistic solution that I propose is that we should change the electoral system so that everyone's vote does count. I shall not bore hon. Members with the detail of how we could make that change, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has already made a strong case for it.
I could argue against myself, however, and point out that a downside of some proportional representation systems is that they take away that unique relationship between politicians and their constituency, as happened in the European elections. That troubles me. It is also arguable that public confidence in politicians can be engaged and restored if people know who their politicians are—see them, engage with them and trust them. In some proportional representation systems that engagement is lost but, broadly speaking, such a system would help to make votes count more.
Some argue that the low turnout was due to satisfaction, and that the electorate were comfortable and satisfied with the result. That is not necessarily the case. On Monday, I attended a seminar organised by the BBC in which that organisation considered its role in re-engaging the public in politics. The meeting did not take place under the Chatham house rule, so it is fair to mention an aspect of the BBC's research that especially interested me. Many people told the researchers that they were proud that they had not voted. They were not suffering from apathy or too satisfied to bother; they had made a positive decision not to vote. The figures were interesting, and we should consider them because they may suggest a third reason why people did not get involved and vote.
What can we do about this? The Home Office is already considering some simplistic ideas for making it easier to vote. It is nonsense to make people vote only on

347WH
a Thursday, in some cold village hall. We must move with the times and I am encouraged by the example of Watford, where voting took place over several days although, disturbingly, the evidence suggested that that made only a small difference to the turnout. That is disappointing, but postal voting could be extended in other ways, perhaps even by insisting that all voting should be done by that means. The Home Office is apparently considering that possibility.
We must look beyond ways to make it easier for people to vote. We need to pick up on the argument made this afternoon that people do not believe that it is worth voting. Globalisation and the growth of non-governmental organisations have had an effect, in that people—especially young people—seem to be much more interested in those organisations. That is where they think the action is. They see some issues as global issues. That makes it difficult for us to argue, at one level, that we are relevant.
I have in several contexts encountered people who tell me bluntly, "We are not voting, because Westminster cannot sort this out." Perhaps some of the Euro-sceptics will argue that things are shifting towards Brussels and that that explains why those people feel disengaged. However, at local council level quite informed individuals say, "What is the point in voting? I may have attended the protest meeting on the planning issue and registered my objection, but I have made discoveries about the councillors' ability to make a difference on that issue, even if they were listening." In some cases councillors are even gagged by national legislation whose effect is that if they have taken an opinion in advance, at a public meeting, they cannot vote on the decision in question. All those factors undermine and break down the democratic process. I would not vote if I thought that, as a result of current trends in legislation, my councillors could not make a difference on a planning committee.
Another factor is at work. The question is not just whether we have power but whether we are seen to be relevant. That is entirely a matter of the perception of this place. I have never felt comfortable with being an hon. Member who has to refer to other hon. Members by their constituencies. I would much rather say that Tony Wright made a really good speech than that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase did so. I occasionally still slip into saying "you". I do not like some of the stuff that we surround ourselves with here, and I know that when people come here and listen to our debates they do not relate to what happens here—particularly young people. They see us bobbing up and down trying to catch the Speaker's eye and talking in archaic language. We move around as if we are in a museum. We must grapple with reform. Those issues may appear insignificant, and perhaps many hon. Members would laugh and accuse me of just tweaking at the edges in wanting to deal with them, but they are important symbolically because they affect people's perceptions of this place.
The way in which we, as Members of Parliament, go about our day-to-day business is also a matter of concern. We need to be more professional, and are obtaining more resources to enable us to be. We need to be more accountable. I have asked time and again why
348WH
Members of Parliament should not at least be required by law to produce an annual report to try to demonstrate some accountability to their constituents. I have done it. I was the first to do so, and it helped me to build a bond and relationship with my constituents. That builds trust, and in return for that comes participation.
There has been an assumption in the debate that the issue is all about elections and democracy and trying to persuade people to become involved in influencing us. We have missed another trick. I am quite keen to take some things away from the democratic process and politicians and return them to communities, bypassing democracy and allowing individuals at local level to take control and be empowered—to run schools, perhaps to run hospitals, to be part of mutual organisations, to engage in and manage the working of their communities. That could mean taking tough decisions; for example, we could decide that democracy as we understand it is not the best way to provide some of the services in question. Let us take some risks, as other hon. Members have said, and allow and empower people to move outside the democratic process which, perhaps, does not work.
I want to conclude by mentioning some of the recommendations and other points in the excellent document produced by the Public Administration Committee and focusing on the ways in which the Minister could respond on some of the issues that need to be tackled. It is disappointing that the Government's response does not show them to be as willing as I would wish them to be to take action on the recommendations. I suspect that the Minister will provide satisfaction with respect to the e-democracy work that the Government are doing. They deserve some praise for that, because there has been progress. However, we need to be even more creative and go further. I do not know whether hon. Members receive as much e-mail as I do in my office, but the time is not far off when the balance between snail mail and e-mail will drift towards the latter. We must be able to tap into that trend. Government Departments must be able to tap into it and use it more than they do.
I know that this fact is endlessly quoted, but it is generally thought that more people voted on who should be evicted from the "Big Brother" house than in the general election. There was a lot of multiple voting, but nevertheless people have been using technology to express an opinion in many ways. We should think about that.
What progress is being made with respect to young people? The Government's response said that the Minister for Children and Young People would shortly be publishing a set of common core principles with respect to participation by young people. I hope to hear when that is to be published and what progress is being made. Also, it would be useful to know who the Minister for Children and Young People is. I did not know that one existed. It would he interesting to see the work in question, which is relevant to some of the issues that we discussed in relation to young people.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who talked about the need to give 16-year-olds the vote. Intellectually, the next logical step is to reduce the age at which people can stand for election. I was

349WH
elected as a local councillor at 22, because I could not stand at 21. I do not know whether that age limit has changed, but I suspect that it has not.
Vernon Coaker: My understanding is that the relevant age at the moment is 21. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The suggestion is that, at the very least, that should be reduced to 18—a suggestion with which I would also agree.
Mr. Oaten: I favour a move in that direction, because it seems illogical to suggest that someone who is entitled to vote cannot represent people. The Minister—a successful, young Minister—may have strong views on the subject.
I am disappointed that the Government have rejected consideration of more public participation in science issues, which was an important suggestion by the Committee. There is a need for an honest, open debate on the subject, especially at a time 'when the public have lost trust because they hear scientists say one thing and Ministers another. The problem started with Edwina Currie and eggs, and has gone through to foot and mouth and BSE. There is much confusion, and it is a classic problem on which more could be done. I did not understand why the Government were hostile on the subject, other than for cost reasons. They should do much more about it.
The people's panel has been set up, and the Government have used it. I have criticised it in the past, not because of the principle, but because it is unclear about its direction. I understand that the MORI contract with the people's panel is due for completion in January 2002. I have not given the Minister much notice before he replies, but it would be useful to have some early suggestions as to what he thinks that the panel will do in future. I should also like him to confirm whether it has been used in the past six months. If not, has MORI still been paid for that period?
The debate has been encouraging. There is no simple solution, but I am greatly encouraged that several colleagues feel the same way as me. I hope that the Minister will reinforce the impression that I have gained, after speaking to other hon. Members, that there is a desire at the heart of government to tackle the problem.
4.52 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: I agree with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that the debate has been helpful. It was opened in a characteristically thoughtful and constructive manner by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), the Chairman of the Select Committee. He was clearly passionate on the subject, as well as extremely well informed. I welcome the fact that he tried to focus—all other hon. Members who spoke did the same—on solutions rather than problems.
I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said, even about the lack of wisdom involved in the Conservative Government's attitude towards civic education. The Minister and I might have become a little worried about his description of the wasted generation 20 years ago who missed out at school on the chance of
350WH
understanding about public life and how politics operates. Neither the Minister nor I would be here if that were true of the entire generation.
Tony Wright: I should perhaps have said that it was only partially true.
Mr. Collins: I am grateful for that gracious remark.
I was also interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment that new forms of participation would not compensate for the wider problems of civic disengagement. He suggested that the new technologies, the development of voluntary groups, and the expansion of a range of other means by which citizens could influence the decisions of public authorities did not offset or even render irrelevant the reduction in turnout at general and other elections. There is a clear consensus that that problem affects all political parties, and we need to discuss that.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is not in the Chamber now, made the case for compulsory voting in an interesting intervention. I lean towards the consensus among the bulk of hon. Members who spoke, which was that that would treat the symptom rather than the cause. We must also recognise that the corollary of compulsory voting is almost always giving the voter the option of going to the polling station and marking a box "none of the above". We might find that an alarmingly large number of people would do so. I am not sure whether that would confer greater legitimacy on us.
One of the themes that has emerged in the debate, and which I want to develop, was first raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He talked of the scepticism among young people about whether the political process can make any difference. They are very interested in issues, but do not think that the political process will make any difference to them. Many other hon. Members touched on that point or aspects of it.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), after giving us some striking and interesting statistics, said that he had found, as I have, a great deal of passion about issues among all age groups, but real scepticism about whether the political process can make a difference. He spoke of a breakdown in trust, and I will speak about the factors that have contributed to that. However, he also said, and this goes to the heart of the matter, that at elections people should realise that they are making a choice about the sort of Government that they want.
All the parties represented here must realise that part of the problem is that people think that how they vote makes little difference to the sort of Government that they get. They would argue that, however they vote, they get the same sort of people taking the same sort of decisions in the same ways. Despite our different perspectives, we probably all profoundly disagree with that. They wonder why they should bother. We must tackle that problem, which is linked to what the hon. Gentleman said about people feeling that they do not influence the decisions that affect their daily lives. The hon. Member for Winchester touched on the fact that Parliament and other elected institutions do not affect people's daily lives to the extent that they once did either.

351WH
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South—
Brian White: North-East.
Mr. Collins: I am sorry. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said that consultation often involved talking to the same sort of people all the time. He is right, and we must recognise that whether consultation takes place at local government, national or European level, there is a danger that a very small number of probably not very representative pressure groups will always respond. Fortunately, those pressure groups often come from different perspectives—they may include business groups, women's groups or environmental groups—and so one does not get a uniform response. Therefore the situation is not quite as dangerous as it would be if it involved a single block of people responding in the same way. Consultation is not simply an echo chamber. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the proportion of the electorate who take part in it is very small.
Like the hon. Member for Winchester, I am something of an enthusiast for the internet. I have been an internet user since 1994 and like him I have been receiving lots of e-mails. The cross-over point between e-mail and snail mail is getting quite close, but we must also recognise that those who have access to and regularly use e-mail are probably not representative of the wider electorate. They are often more literate and articulate and they probably have more money, because they can afford access to the internet. Therefore, the internet is not necessarily the answer to the problem either. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East concluded by saying that there was a case for bringing party politics back into some decisions, so that people did not think that the party political process was irrelevant. He was right, and he touched on a point that I will try to develop later.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) was close to defining one of the problems when he spoke about turnout in local elections beginning to decline when people saw powers being taken away from local authorities and given to unelected quangos. If that process did not start when my party was in office, it certainly got a lot worse during that period, but it has not got any better since.
The hon. Gentleman identified the problem. The electorate are not stupid or idle; they do not need to be educated or compelled to take a different view about the political process. In most respects and on most issues the electorate are more astute than we are. They stopped voting in local elections because they saw that local councils were losing power and relevance and the ability to make a difference. They have stopped voting in general elections because they can see that Parliament is losing its ability to influence their daily lives. That process certainly started before 1997, but it has continued since. We must recognise that it culminates in the failure of democracy.
An independent Member of Parliament was elected on 7 June 2001. He is not present, but I hope that he will not mind if I refer to him. As we know, he was elected
352WH
on the simple but clear issue of saving a hospital in his constituency; there was a rebellion by the people against all the political parties. He was elected by the kind of huge majority that would warm the cockles of any hon. Member's heart. None the less, he and his constituents know that there is no prospect of his election saving that hospital. That constituency is a microcosm, but we see the wider phenomenon time and again.
The problem combines two phenomena. More voters conclude that they will make no difference to decisions that affect them, however they vote. Others think that voting will confer legitimacy on a political system of which they have a declining sense of ownership and do not wish to support. We saw that in the European parliamentary elections. By definition, I represent a constituency with an above-average number of Conservative voters and, therefore, of Eurosceptics. There is no doubt, however, that voters in European elections have increasingly said, "I don't approve of Europe so I'm not going to vote in the elections to the European Parliament." I tell them that they will have a European Parliament whether they want one or not. I say that they must decide whether to elect someone who wants to go down a route that they like or someone who wants to go down a route that they do not like.
None the less, people feel that voting does the institution and the people in it a favour, as several hon. Members said. People feel that voting in a parliamentary election is doing Members of Parliament and other parliamentary candidates—as believers in the parliamentary institution—a favour. They do not think that they are doing something for themselves. If people feel that an institution's legitimacy is declining—that is undoubtedly true of the European Parliament and, worryingly, increasingly true of this institution—we cannot be surprised if turnouts are lower.
Those two phenomena are clearly true of Parliament. This place is much less able to take decisions than it was 50 years ago. Many of the reasons for that are rather desirable and result from policies that my party introduced in its various times in office. When people vote in a general election, they are not taking decisions about who will control their electricity and water or run British Steel, British Airways and British Telecom. Members of Parliament no longer take such decisions. Nor do they make decisions about court cases. The Home Secretary no longer has the final right to decide how long a convicted murderer should stay in prison or whether a matter should be referred to the Court of Appeal. Powers have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
Courts have become much more powerful and have taken powers from Ministers and Parliament through the judicial review process, which has been going for more than 20 years, but has accelerated under the Human Rights Act 1998. We should also consider European institutions and the growing power of Downing street and the Executive. The electorate do not need political education and are not wrong to believe that Parliament is less important than it was—it is we who must recognise that it is less important. If we want to increase voter turnout, we must tackle fundamental questions about Parliament's power in ways that we have not done before.

353WH
My final point is not intended to suggest the route that we should take. It offers a stark contrast, however, between the understanding of the powers and role of elected politicians in this country and in other countries. A few years ago in the United States, I and some parliamentary colleagues of all parties were taken on an expedition. We were taken from the buildings of Washington DC into the state of West Virginia, not far away. It rapidly became clear which senator was the longest serving and most relevant to the state of West Virginia. The first clue came when we crossed the River Potomac on the Senator Robert C. Byrd bridge. We then drove along the Senator Robert C. Byrd highway past the Senator Robert C. Byrd industrial park and ended up at the Senator Robert C. Byrd library. I do not necessarily advocate that Members of Parliament should have quite so much control over the appropriations process, nor that sense of vaingloriousness, but I bet that voters in West Virginia had a clear idea of what their senator had done for them. If we want to improve voter turnout in this country, perhaps we should ensure that constituents know what their Member of Parliament is doing for them.
5.5 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) opened the debate by setting out an important series of principles. Talking about public participation is akin to examining the state of politics today, but he touched on the fact that public participation needs to be increased not only to enhance our legitimacy but because it is valuable in itself for its contribution to the process of civil society. The sense of empowerment experienced by the citizen who feels that his views are taken into account when public decisions are made is unquestionable. We must find ways of investing in the concept of social capital and supporting the networks and relationships between individuals in communities that enrich society and spark new opportunities for everyone. That is the challenge we have been discussing today.
The topic is extremely wide and I apologise in advance because it will be difficult to cover in any depth all the subjects that have been mentioned. For example, the question of the separation of the Executive and the legislature is too wide for me to deal with now.
The subject of the sixth report of the Public Adminstration Committee was entitled "Public participation: issues and innovation". The Committee recommended several improvements to the way in which consultation is carried out. It suggested ways in which local democracy could be improved and other tools could be used to better effect in finding out what our citizens want. It is a good report, which has been welcomed by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase and members of the Committee for all their efforts. The Government have replied to the report and dealt with many of the specific points that it raised. The Government recognise that there is a problem with low voter turnout and general civil disengagement in our democracy. We are not complacent about the problem and it is clear that we need to find out why it is happening and establish what the solutions are. I want to set out today what action the Government are taking to improve public participation in our democracy.
354WH
I shall begin by talking about e-democracy, which the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) mentioned. The Government are looking closely at ways in which we can harness the power of new technology in our drive to strengthen our democratic processes. I am pleased to be able to report that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced the formation of a new Cabinet Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons, to look into the issue in more detail. That Committee will consider ways of strengthening the democratic process by engaging the public and their elected representatives through the use of the internet and other electronic means. The formation of the Committee is a clear indication that the Prime Minister and the Government recognise the importance of the issue.
The e-envoy unit at the Cabinet Office, in conjunction with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, is developing early proposals to put to the Committee about a possible policy on e-democracy. Those draft proposals will look at two separate, but interdependent, tracks. First, they will consider the issue of the electronic means by which the public can participate in decision making and the use of new technologies to give citizens enhanced opportunities to participate in the democratic process between elections. Secondly, the proposals will deal with the issue of electronic voting and the use of new technologies to ensure that people have better opportunities to take part in elections.
Those are possible ways in which we can facilitate greater interaction. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) touched on that in his contribution. None of these things is a panacea in respect of participation, but I hope that they will help to re-engage voters and reconnect them with the electoral system.
Brian White: On the issue of personal identity and how the Government relate to individuals, is the Minister comfortable with the myriad different personal identities that the Government have? When will the Office of the e-Envoy report on its personal identity consultations?
Mr. Leslie: When we examine the mechanistic issues of voting we can look in depth at the degree of trust that the public have in the systems that they use to cast their votes. The issue of e-voting will, I imagine, prompt a series of questions about authenticity, identity and security. It will take some time to address those questions. The Government have already demonstrated their willingness to be radical and to pilot new ideas. We should like to see such matters ironed out as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Winchester and my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Martin Linton) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) had one view when it came to electoral reform and the voting system used in local government, in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) was not quite convinced of that. The Government are concerned about the low turnout in local elections, but we do not believe that a change to the voting system is the solution. There is no solid evidence that the introduction of proportional representation is the

355WH
answer. However, we remain open-minded and will continue to monitor developments elsewhere. For the time being, there is insufficient evidence to support changing a tried and tested system. However, we shall take other measures—
Mr. Neil Turner: We have heard that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) was elected on this specific issue. In the previous Parliament we had the hon. Member for Tatton, who was also elected on a very specific issue. Will the Minister agree that neither of those hon. Members would have been able to present his particular point of view if we had had a system of proportional representation?
Mr. Leslie: I am glad that there are now two Members who are not convinced that there should be a change to the voting system.
Mr. Collins: There are certainly three.
Mr. Leslie: The number grows by the second. That is the kernel of the debate. The point about the constituency link is a good one. It could be debated for hours. I see that the hon. Member for Winchester is champing at the bit.
Mr. Oaten: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Are the Government still sticking by their manifesto commitment to consider the issue?
Mr. Leslie: Absolutely. We want to keep an open mind. However, we have also to consider whether—in the light of the evidence from the European parliamentary elections and the Scottish and Welsh elections, where different voting systems were used—a change in system was of great significance in the context of public participation.
Tony Wright: I am sorry to interrupt. I am puzzled about how we will accumulate the evidence about different electoral systems at a local level if we do not have any experiments.
Mr. Leslie: The problem is that experimenting with different electoral systems is different from piloting new voting mechanisms. If there were to be one council elected using one voting system and another elected via a completely different one, or perhaps the representatives of one ward elected in a different way from those of another, the legitimacy of some candidates might be called into question. I suspect that the Government would feel—certainly I do—that, for that reason, we need to be more careful in piloting on a geographical basis.
Martin Linton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Leslie: Why not?
Martin Linton: Is my hon. Friend not aware that a lot of evidence collected by international organisations
356WH
devoted to the study of elections already demonstrates that the electoral system that produces the lowest turnouts is the one that we use?
Mr. Leslie: Those are absolutely the pieces of rigorous evidence that I feel that the Government should consider in a lot more depth. We can pick up a lot from that international learning, and my hon. Friend has more knowledge and experience on such matters than most of us.
Talking of local government electoral pilots, however, I should mention that in May 2000 we organised 32 local authorities to run 38 pilot schemes to experiment and innovate—for instance, on early voting, electronic voting, all-postal ballots, mobile ballot boxes and weekend voting. All-postal ballots were the only experiments that increased turnout significantly. Turnout rose in some places when other means were used, but all-postal ballots resulted in turnouts that were up to a third higher than in comparable areas.
The hon. Member for Battersea spoke about the ease of voting. The Government have been concerned about that since the general election, and we are now inviting other local authorities to apply for a new round of pilots for the May 2002 local elections. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has allocated £3.5 million to help local authorities to apply for such experiments. They will be evaluated by the Electoral Commission. We also need to consider whether elected mayors may be another way to engage people, and encourage them to believe that local government is reconnecting.
On local advisory referendums, the Government are committed to legislating when parliamentary time allows. We need to put those powers on a statutory basis, and that will certainly be one area on which we will seek to develop policy in the near future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield touched on regional governance. We remain committed to taking forward that agenda. We believe that, if people want them, elected regional assemblies can play a part in bringing democracy closer to the people, strengthening accountability and helping to reinvigorate the political process.
Ministers, led by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and in liaison with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and other Cabinet Ministers, are working on the forthcoming White Paper on regional governance. That will set out the Government's plans for taking forward our manifesto commitment on elected regional government. During the run-up to publication of that White Paper, we want to encourage a wider public debate; we want to encourage all to express a view.
Elected regional assemblies will not be imposed. Local people will be given the choice through regional referendums, although we are keen for progress to be made. It is critical that we get the proposals right and that people have the opportunity to contribute to the shape of regional governance.
Mr. Collins: As the Minister was somewhat eloquent in his earlier remarks on the need to be cautious on the introduction of proportional representation for local

357WH
government, can we take it that that the White Paper will not automatically commit the Government to introducing proportional representation for regional assemblies? Would the Government even consider asking that question in a referendum?
Mr. Leslie: That is an interesting point. I have not drawn a conclusion on that. I certainly believe that the Government will be considering it, but when the White Paper is published all will be revealed.
Turning to the question of public consultation raised by the hon. Gentleman and others, the Cabinet Office has taken a number of important steps to improve the standards of public involvement. Some of them were mentioned in the Committee's report and the Government's response. The code of practice on written consultation, published in November 2000, was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Consultation is a central plank in the Government's commitment to encouraging greater openness.
The new code is binding on all Departments. It covers consultation with all sectors of public interest—business, trade unions and other pressure groups, as well the voluntary sector. The Government will evaluate the code in the latter half of next year. There is some cynicism about the extent to which views are genuinely listened to, which is why we included in the code a requirement for Departments to summarise views expressed in the Government response to consultation and to give clear reasons for rejecting options that were not adopted.
Early evidence suggests that the standard of consultation by central Government has improved since the code came into force in January. My hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Cannock Chase highlighted the critical fact that consultations need to be meaningful, rather than simply a statutory hoop and inconvenient barrier for Departments to overcome. In my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, I feel extremely frustrated by consultation exercises that make one feel as though boxes are being ticked without anyone listening. If I feel that as an. MP, surely we need to do more to engage the public.
From my experience, I feel that young people need to be engaged in the political process. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and the hon. Members for Winchester and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) touched on the issue. Although young people are the most likely people to be online, they are least likely to vote. I agree with the Committee that, if we are to tackle low public participation, we must start with young people.
Vernon Coaker: Will the Minister consider reducing the voting age to 16 and the age at which people can become Members of Parliament and councillors from 21 to 18? Will he try to ensure that that idea is included in any discussions on the subject? I do not expect him to say yes.
Mr. Leslie: The Government have an open mind on the age at which members of the public can stand for elected office. In terms of public participation, I am not sure that we will be especially successful at convincing
358WH
16 to 18-year-olds to vote if we cannot convince 18 to 24-year-olds to do so. The problem lies a little deeper, and Select Committees have been considering it in much more depth.
Only about 39 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds cast their votes at the last election. The Minister of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who has responsibility for young people, has asked the Government's children and young people's unit to investigate the reasons for lower levels of political engagement among young people. That work was launched on 29 October, when 60 young people presented their views and opinions on what needed to happen to encourage them to engage in the democratic process. The unit is extending the consultation process, and is working with other organisations and stakeholders including political parties, the media and the Electoral Commission to explore the issues raised.
The plan is that by the spring, in the light of the consultation, recommendations will be made by the Government, the political parties and the media on what they can do to encourage young people to engage in the democratic process. The burden is not only on the Executive. Many people, especially those of us in Parliament, must share in tackling it. We must ensure that we find ways to engage young people in the political process, not least perhaps by considering citizenship education. The issue of civic literacy and social responsibility was alluded to by my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling, for Cannock Chase and for Great Yarmouth.
Following the Government's proposals in "Excellence in schools", an education White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—he was then the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—set up an advisory committee to provide advice on effective education for citizenship in schools. We believe that citizenship education is central to creating a modern and inclusive society. The subject will help to develop pupils' formal knowledge of how political processes work, how decisions are made and how individuals can play a part. It will also help them to develop greater understanding of the democratic process and the institutions that underpin democracy in our country. It will provide opportunities for pupils to take responsibility and action in their neighbourhoods and communities to change things for the better.
The hon. Member for Winchester and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield talked about engaging the community and the voluntary sector, which is an important subject which cannot be ignored. The Government agree with the Public Administration Committee that effective public participation in central and local government decision making requires a healthy civil society, a hallmark of which is an effective and engaged voluntary and community sector. The work of voluntary and community organisations is fundamental to achieve our aim of a fairer, more socially inclusive society.
The Government are doing much to improve that area; for example, there is an active community unit at the Home Office which provides funding for voluntary organisations to increase their effectiveness, including those that promote volunteering. The Home Office sponsors the Community Development Foundation,

359WH
which is a non-departmental public body whose mission is to promote community development by enabling people to work in partnership with public authorities, government, the corporate sector and voluntary organisations to regenerate and strengthen their communities. The aim of that work is to create a step change in voluntary and community involvement by promoting increased activity in both and by supporting the development of active communities. It is important to note that many regeneration schemes have capacity building—that is not a phrase on which I am especially keen, and no one knows exactly what it means, but it suggests that the schemes look for ways of channelling the voices of local communities. In that way, when resources are available for less well-off communities, those sums can be spent on things that the local population wants.
The Public Administration Committee, and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, asked whether we should have a new democracy commission. The Select Committee may have to consider in more detail the work of the Electoral Commission, which was established only a year ago. That body does not simply have a remit for technical mechanistic functions of elections, but has an explicit aim to promote the awareness of democratic systems and develop programmes of voter education. A dialogue on that matter between that body and Parliament would be fruitful. To create a separate democracy commission would be premature and might cause confusion, given that the Electoral Commission has only recently been established.
Earlier in the debate, we heard a fascinating exchange between my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is no longer in his place, on the question of compulsory voting. Although I can see the superficial attractions of any remedy that might raise civic engagement, the Government do not believe that compulsory voting would guarantee genuine and meaningful democratic involvement. Compelling grudging participation is surely less desirable than engaging and enthusing citizens. That is the true challenge that we all need to face.
Although I accept that enormous policy areas remain on which more work must be done, I believe that the Government have made substantive progress in a number of positive ways. We created the Electoral Commission, which is considering many issues realised by the Select Committee and will address as a high priority the problems of lower voter turnout. We are setting up the ministerial committee on e-democracy, and will conduct a wide-ranging public consultation on that area. That should lead to the implementation of new ideas, to increased public participation and improved voter turnout through new technology. Another component is the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which will open access and change the culture proactively to put Government information into the public arena. We do not have to debate that in detail today, but it is an important factor.
The hon. Member for Winchester asked a series of questions about the people's panel, which we first created to seek public views on improving public
360WH
services, not on specific policies but on how they use the services that we all enjoy. We shall, however, examine new ways of finding out consumers' views on those vital services and of ensuring that we continue to have feedback and dialogue on such practical issues of public policy.
Brian White: There have been a number of similar panels with quite a range of experience. Will the Minister allow a review of those when he considers winding up the people's panel?
Mr. Leslie: Our research into the public's opinion of the services that they use needs continually updating. Local councils have been innovating in a number of ways and have conducted deliberative research. Central Government can learn lessons from local government in that regard, just as we can send guidance notes down to local councils. The issue requires greater investigation.
Mr. Oaten: Will the people's panel be wound up or reviewed in January? That was not clear from the Minister's answer.
Mr. Leslie: The contract for the people's panel runs out in January 2002. MORI is carrying out several analyses. We have decided to consider ways of taking matters forward into a second phase, although I do not have an announcement to make on that. I shall certainly inform the hon. Gentleman if and when we reach a firm decision.
A number of the schemes that I mentioned promote best practice in public participation. We can only try our best at administrative and ministerial level to engage the public and improve our consultative practices. We published the code of practice to improve the standards of public consultation across central Government. We are expanding consultation through the network of consultation co-ordinators and by producing best practice material. We have even given the public access to national consultations via a central register of consultations on the website, for those who have the time and inclination to visit it.
I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will see that the Government have been actively tackling the issues. We are not complacent and we genuinely welcome the fresh thinking of the Committee and of hon. Members present today. I thank the House for finding time for a debate on this important subject. I hope that we shall continue to have a useful dialogue on this enormously wide-ranging subject.
5.33 pm
Tony Wright: I thought that there was a convention whereby I as Chairman thanked those hon. Members who had taken part, Mr. Cook. I am talking just in case that is true. Do I stand corrected?
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): No. Carry on.
Tony Wright: I get the impression that I should be brief, and I shall be exceptionally brief.
I was going to take up some hon. Members' comments, but I shall not do so now. We heard some fascinating contributions, which were full of good ideas.

361WH
I was intrigued to hear about the politician in Virginia who had all those buildings named after him. I wonder whether something similar might be the solution to the collapse of electoral participation in Cannock Chase, which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) mentioned.
My most depressing moment during the election was when I stood not on Attlee crescent or Bevan way, but on William Morris drive on an estate where no one was taking any interest in the campaign. That was civic death. The fact that it happened in a street named after William Morris, who was the epitome of civic engagement and energy seemed—well, hon. Members will get the point.
We have heard some good ideas. I was reminded of Oscar Wilde's remark about the trouble with socialism being that it took up too many evenings. Participation
362WH
does, of course, take up people's evenings, and they are pretty jealous of them these days. However, people are also full of ideas about how we might move matters on.
Finally, there is a misunderstanding about our proposal for a democracy commission. That is our fault, not my hon. Friend the Minister's, and I welcomed his comments about the e-democracy initiative. I had a meeting with the head of the Electoral Commission, who was also anxious about that misunderstanding. The Committee proposes a short-lived commission which will find out what has been going wrong and to put solutions in place. There is an urgency about the issue that requires such an initiative, preferably from the Government. I hope that our report and this debate will contribute in some way towards moving the issue on.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Six o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Steel Exports
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent consultation she has had with representatives from the steel industry about exports of steel. [16479]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had meetings with steel industry representatives and trade unions which represent steel industry workers, about a wide range of issues.

  Workers' Rights
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will conduct a further review of the rights of people at work. [16480]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans at the TUC Conference to review the entire operation of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and to legislate in this Parliament if necessary. We are also consulting, or are about to, on other aspects of employment legislation, including TUPE and the introduction of new rights on discrimination at work.

  Consignia
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects of Consignia reform plans on(a) postal jobs in Wales and (b) the postal service in Wales. [16481]

  Mr. Alexander
  Consignia's modernisation plans are an operational issue for the company.

  The effect of the postal service is an issue for the independent regulatory body, the Postal Services Commission, which has set standards of service for Consignia and is monitoring them closely.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the contribution of the regional development agencies, Government offices and the Small Business Service to the development of child care services as part of economic regeneration and enterprise development in the last 12 months. [16483]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This important matter was raised with all RDA chairmen on 4 April. DTI officials have since met with the east midlands RDA who are taking a lead on how the provision of child care might be boosted.
  1038W
  We expect the RDAs, the SBS and Government offices to promote the development of child care services as a vital component of the strategy for future economic growth and prosperity.

  Tyre Industry
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has made an assessment of the performance of the UK tyre-building industry; and if she will make a statement. [16484]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the performance of the UK tyre-building industry; and if she will make a statement. [16502]

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from the UK tyre-building industry about international competition; and if she will make a statement. [16504]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department has received representations from a number of hon. Members and the major tyre producers in the UK. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions will meet a delegation from the Parliamentary Motor Tyre Group in the near future to discuss the issue further.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to improve the UK's position in the world competitiveness league table. [16485]

  Ms Hewitt
  Improving UK competitiveness involves business, employees and consumers as well as Government. The Government have created a stable economic environment in which business can prosper, a climate for enterprise and the right framework for investment. We delivered low inflation, the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years and consistent policies on tax and regulation. Last week I announced a series of changes to give my own Department a clear emphasis on enterprise, innovation and competition so that it is better focused on the need to close the UK's productivity gap with its competitors.

  Manufacturing (Smart Awards)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution Smart awards have made to improving the productivity of manufacturing businesses. [16487]

  Ms Hewitt
  The main aim of Smart is to stimulate technological innovation to increase the competitiveness of small and medium sized businesses, rather than to increase productivity. The independent evaluation of Smart this year found that as a result of their awards 77 per cent. of participants improved the quality of their products, services and processes, 26 per cent. reduced costs and 71 per cent. improved their market position.

  Broadband Communications
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in extending broadband telecommunications to rural communities. [16489]
  1039W
  Mr. Alexander
  Broadband services by one or more of ADSL, cable or wireless technologies are available to 60–60 per cent. of households in the UK. Satellite services, which potentially can offer coverage of the entire country, are beginning to become available. We have established a £30 million fund to help extend affordable broadband services to areas where they are not currently available.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what plans she has to improve access to broadband telecommunications networks in 2002. [16508]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government will shortly set out their strategy for making the broadband market more extensive and competitive. Regional Development Agencies and the devolved administrations are already preparing plans for innovative projects, under the £30 million fund to extend broadband networks announced on 9 October.

  Manufacturing (North-west)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what recent assessment she has made of prospects for manufacturing output in the north-west of England. [16490]

  Alan Johnson
  Officials at the Department of Trade and Industry work continuously with regional and national partners to assess the prospects for all sectors of industry. In addition, the North West Development Agency is preparing a report assessing the impact of the events of 11 September and its aftermath on the economy of the region and identifying possible remedial measures.

  Compliance Costs (Small Businesses)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what assessment she has made of the change in the compliance cost of regulation for businesses with fewer than five employees since 1997. [16492]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The information required could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. However, the Government are working to ensure that the compliance cost of regulation is kept to a minimum for both small and large businesses.

  Rural Post Office Services
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Post Office services in rural areas. [16493]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices and have placed a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices.

  Venture Capital Funds (RDAs)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the operation of the regional development agency venture capital funds. [16494]
  1040W
  Alan Johnson
  A number of RDAs are operating, or overseeing the development of venture capital funds in their regions. These funds are designed to target particular sectors of the SME market or geographical areas within their region, for example in the West Midlands there is the Advantage Technology Fund, in the North East the North East Seed Capital Fund and in Yorkshire and the Humber the South Yorkshire Investment Fund.

  In addition, RDAs continue to play an important role by acting as sponsors to the development of Regional Venture Capital Funds.

  Aerospace Industry
  Sir. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact on the aerospace industry of the reduction in the number of passengers since 11 September. [16495]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) and for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on 29 November 2001,Official Report, columns 1087–88.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent progress has been made in the payment of compensation for former miners and their dependants. [16496]

  Mr. Wilson
  In relation to compensation for respiratory disease IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered almost 170,000 claims to date. 54,230 individual payments have been made, amounting to £221 million. The main outstanding issues have now largely been resolved. This means that where previously only interim payments could be made, these claims can now be settled in full. Although it will take some time for the process to ramp up fully in all respects, the Department's aim is that IRISC will have made 50,000 offers by the end of next year.

  The Department continues to adhere to the prioritisation agreement set out in the Handling Agreement, whereby the most elderly and ill claimants are dealt with first. Widows are also being prioritised, above those by other estates. The Department aims to process the most vulnerable claims by spring 2002.

  In relation to compensation for vibration white finger (VWF), IRISC have registered over 130,000 claims. There have been 73,527 individual payments made, amounting to £408.9 million.

  Nuclear Power
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of nuclear power generation capacity. [16497]

  Mr. Wilson
  Nuclear power contributes to our broad energy policy objectives of ensuring secure, diverse, sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices by providing about one quarter of UK electricity generation and helping limit carbon emissions. In common with all other energy options, nuclear's role in UK energy policy
  1041W
  is being considered by the current performance and innovation unit energy review which is due to report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the end of the year.

  Manufacturing (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to help manufacturing in rural areas. [16498]

  Alan Johnson
  Manufacturing companies in rural areas benefit from the strengthened regional support we have introduced and the wide range of policies we are pursuing to foster productivity, encourage enterprise, and raise innovation and skills.

  My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for small business announced on 7 November 2001 the establishment of the Development Fund for Rural Renewal. This £3 million support programme will provide funding for projects that offer support to enterprises, including manufacturing, in areas facing difficulties due to the effects of foot and mouth disease.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's strategy to eliminate the gender pay gap. [16500]

  Ms Hewitt
  Earlier this year we asked Denise Kingsmill to examine and report on possible measures to improve women's employment prospects and so reduce the pay gap. We are currently considering her report, which will be published next week. It would be premature to make a statement today.

  Climate Change Levy
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received recently from manufacturing industry on the effects of the climate change levy. [16501]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has received a number of representations from individual businesses, trade associations and other organisations about the climate change levy.

  Directors' Remuneration
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to increase the power of shareholders to determine directors' remuneration. [16505]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 19 October 2001,Official Report, column 1376W.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the prospects for clean coal technology. [16506]
  1042W
  Mr. Wilson
  Future coal-fired power generation will need to reduce its current levels of greenhouse gas and other emissions and to this effect the Government support a programme of research and development into cleaner coal technologies. We are also reviewing the case for a cleaner coal technology demonstration plant and are due to report our findings in the near future.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she will take to enhance the role of the regional development agencies. [16507]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is continuing the process of enhancement of the RDAs started last year with the announcement of additional funding, more spending flexibility and a stronger economic focus. Implementation culminates on 1 April 2002 when the RDAs' existing programmes are brought together into a single, broader and more flexible programme managed through testing outcome and output targets. She also announced on 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 396W, a series of changes to the structure and operation of her Department. One change will be the transfer of responsibility for some Regional Selective Assistance grants from Regional Government Offices to the RDAs.

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes in board membership there have been in each of the regional development agencies in the last 12 months. [18371]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: In the 12 months to 26 November, there have been four resignations: Mike Bird resigned from the board of Advantage West Midlands and Sal Brinton, Chris Mole and Peter Dawe resigned from the board of the East of England Development Agency.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 October 2001, Official Report, column 250W which announced re-appointments to the boards.

  I am currently consulting on the new appointments to the eight English Regional Development Agencies outside London, as required by the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. An announcement on the outcome of the appointments process will be made in due course.

  Appointments to the London Development Agency are the responsibility of the Mayor of London.

  High-tech Businesses
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to create a healthy environment for encouraging the growth of high-tech businesses. [16486]

  Mr. Alexander
  The DTI is committed to supporting high-tech companies and is engaged in a range of activities to assist these companies reach their full growth potential.

  Hydrological Fracturing
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent representations her Department has received regarding the technology and engineering involved in hydrological fracturing; [7346]
  1043W
  (2) what recent research has been done by her Department into the effects of hydrological fracturing; [7347]

  (3) what (a) quantitive and (b) qualitative research methods were used in studies by her Department on hydrological fracturing; who commissioned such studies; and what examples of field trial stages have been published; [7345]

  (4) what recent research has been completed by the relevant authorities on the environmental, commercial and social effects of hydrological fracturing. [7349]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department, as part of its Cleaner Coal Technology Programme, has funded a number of projects that included work on hydrological fracturing, although it has not commissioned specific R&D on this subject.

  The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) has funded research into hydrogeology, including the hydrological fracturing of rock and other media. NERC's British Geological Survey (BGS) has undertaken work reviewing the use of the technology of fracturing in Coal Bed Methane production. A list of the NERC research portfolio, including grants funded through NERC's Micro to Macro programme, is listed below on Annexe 1.

  Annexe 1

  Hydrological Fracturing: Grants funded by NERC 1997–98 to date Non-thematic grants

  ROPA Seismic imaging of subseismic natural fracture systems (1996–98, British Geological Survey)

  Basement structural controls on fault architectures, accommodation zones and sedimentation in rift systems (1996–2000, Royal Holloway)

  Fracture characterisation of deep repository sites (1998–99, Imperial College)

  Self-organisation of fluid flow, chemical reactivity and rock strength in porous reservoir rocks (1999–2001, Edinburgh University)

  The hydraulic properties of rock fractures under normal and shear loading (1996–97, Imperial College)

  Submarine rifting laboratory studies of tensile and extensional fracture in mor rocks, leading to numerical models of tectonic and hydrothermal process (1995–97, University College, London)

  Localised flow in fractured rock masses: mechanisms, modelling and characterisation (1999–2002, Imperial College)

  Modelling porosity development and flow in heterogeneous media (1999–2001, British Geological Survey)

  Scaling of fluid behaviour associated with flow through complex geological structures (1999–2001, Leeds University)

  Fully determined fluid velocity fields for complex 2D media with multi-scaled heterogeneity (2000–03, University of Ulster)

  Fracture induced anisotropic seismic attenuation (2001–03, Imperial College)

  Characterisation of the unsaturated hydraulic properties of the Sherwood Sandstone using combined cross-borehole radar and resistivity tomography (1998–2000, Lancaster University)

  The significance of saline fluids in high-temperature deep-crustal metamorphism (1999–2002, Edinburgh University)

  Vadose zone flow mechanisms in hydraulically layered aquifers using time domain reflectometry (2000–02, Leeds University)

  Molecular modelling of clay-fluid interactions under sedimentary basin conditions: the structure and mobility of water and light hydrocarbons (1999–2002, University College London)

  Exceptional porosity in oil-bearing sandstones (2000–02, Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre)

  1044W
  Thematic grants—Micro to Macro programme

  Analysis of reaction and flow in stochastically heterogeneous porous media (1999–2001, Cambridge University)

  New micro-geochemical traces of fluid and solute transport in sedimentary basins (1999–1999, Edinburgh University)

  Scaling properties of fluid flow in fractured rocks (1999–2002, University College London)

  Controls of matrix and fracture flow from geochemical analysis of produced oil (2000–02, Reading University)

  Localised flow in fractured rock masses mechanisms, modelling and characterisation (1999–2002, Southampton University/ Imperial College)

  Determination of hydraulic properties of distributed fractures using seismic techniques (1999–2002, Cambridge University/ British Geological Survey)

  Modelling porosity development and flow on heterogeneous media (1999–2001, British Geological Survey)

  Scaling of fluid behaviour associated with flow through complex geological structures (1999–2001, Leeds University)

  Quantifying the effects of biofilm growth on hydraulic properties and on sorption equilibria: micro to macro measurements (2000–02, Manchester University)

  Multi-scale fluid-flow path analysis: calibration and modelling using mineralisation systems (2000–02, Imperial College)

  Cementation of oilfield sandstones: micro-geochemical tracers, reveal macro-fluid hydrogeology (2000–02, Edinburgh University)

  Fully determined fluid velocity fields for complex 2D media with multi-scaled heterogeneity (2000–02, Ulster University)

  The scaling behaviour of fluid rock flow in rock fractures (2000–02, Aberdeen University)

  Novel flow and transport models for systems exhibiting non-integer flow dimensions (2000–02, University College London)

  Determination of hydraulic properties of distributed fractures using seismic techniques (1999–2002, British Geological Survey/Cambridge University)

  Modelling porosity development and flow in heterogeneous media (1999–2001, University College London)

  Multi-scale fluid-flow path analysis calibration and modelling using mineralisation systems (2000–02, Leeds University)

  Quantifying the scaling of physical transport in structured heterogeneous porous media (2001–04, Birmingham University)

  Thematic grants—Ocean Drilling Programme

  High resolution fluid flow patterns at the Nankai convergent plate margin (2001–04, University of Wales, Aberystwyth)

  Grants relating to coal measures and methane

  Hydrogeology of flooded, abandoned mine workings—an integrated hydraulic/hydrogeochemical analysis (2000–2000, Newcastle-upon-Tyne University)

  Urban regeneration of coalfields: generic studies of contaminated land and groundwater issues exemplified in Wolverhampton (1998–2002, Sheffield University/British Geological Survey).

  Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the annual budget for the Office for Civil Nuclear Security; and if she has plans to increase the budget following the events of 11 September. [15581]

  Mr. Wilson
  The budget for the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) is approximately £1.5 million in the current year. The measures which need to be taken following the events of 11 September, including nuclear security, are currently under review.
  1045W
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on the competitiveness of the nuclear power industry of additional security requirements since 11 September. [16893]

  Mr. Wilson
  No such assessment has been undertaken.

  Workplace Bullying
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce monitoring of the incidence of workplace bullying. [18486]

  Alan Johnson
  Bullying and harassment have no place in today's work environment and are unacceptable whenever they occur. The Government strongly condemn such behaviour and believe employees should be able to work without fear of encountering bullying from their employers or anyone else.

  The adoption of best employment relations practice should help create a culture where bullying becomes unacceptable. We have established the Partnership Fund which provides support for organisations wishing to develop policies to tackle bullying in the workplace. The Department is also working closely with the Health and Safety Executive on the development of management standards. The first step is to undertake research to establish the real extent of the problem and how it manifests itself in the workplace.

  There is a range of legislative measures in place designed to protect employees from the worst offences.

  Economic Development Zone (Lancashire)
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) organisations, (b) interest groups, (c) individuals and (d) community forums have been consulted in relation to the bid put forward to the regional development agency by Lancaster city council for an economic development zone. [18252]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: Lancaster's bid is endorsed by the Lancaster and Morecambe Local Strategic Partnership. If accepted, the EDZ strategy will be implemented through an Action Plan Partnership based on the existing broadly-based Lancaster Single Regeneration Budget Board. Steps have been taken to ensure key partners are fully involved and informed.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives the Export Control Office is taking to reduce the processing time of licence applications. [17427]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The Government recognise that the system for processing export licence applications requires continuous improvement if we are to deliver a more efficient and effective system for export licensing which is accountable, transparent and customer focused. I have introduced "time-lines" to track cases. The
  1046W
  Export Control Organisation (ECO) has taken a number of initiatives to reduce the time taken to process individual export licence applications. These include:
  building productive customer relationships, including setting up a joint CBI/ECO working group to work with exporters to address issues of concern, including delays in processing export licence applications;
  enhancing IT systems to ensure they deliver further business process improvements. It is planned that this will lead to, amongst other things, standard individual export licence applications being accepted over the internet next year;
  establishing more effective partnerships with other Government Departments. Departments involved in the licensing process have agreed in principle to a Service Level Agreement, which we hope to finalise shortly. This will ensure that Departments work better together and focus more sharply on outputs; and
  establishing new structures which allow us to continually review and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the decision making process. There are regular meetings between officials in all Departments involved in the export licensing process to identify ways of improving the export licensing system, as well as to discuss particular licence applications.

  One North East
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons Mr. Hugh Morgan Williams has been removed from the board of One North East; and if a representative of the North East CBI is to be appointed in his place. [18370]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 October 2001, Official Report, column 250W, which announced the decision to implement a rolling programme of board appointments. To achieve this it was necessary for some effective RDA board members to make way for new appointees. Hugh Morgan Williams will not be reappointed to the board of One North East when his appointment term ends in December 2001. The decision not to reappoint Hugh Morgan Williams was no reflection on his performance and I hope he will feel able to continue his involvement in the regeneration of the North East.

  New appointments under the rolling programme will be announced shortly. These appointments are being made in accordance with the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Board members are appointed as individuals and not as representatives of organisations. They are appointed on merit and for the skills and expertise that they can offer.

  Arms Purchasing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on sustainable development in relation to arms purchasing. [18671]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: Under the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria the Government are currently obliged to take into account whether or not a proposed arms export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country. Under clause 8 of the Export Control Bill, these criteria would be treated as published guidance that the Government must have regard to in making licensing decisions.

  British Arms Manufacturers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what controls there are to ensure that British arms manufacturers who manufacture arms abroad are regulated properly. [18670]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: Controls already apply to the export of goods or technology required for the development, production or use of military equipment and other equipment subject to export control. Such controls would apply to exports intended for use in overseas production. The Export Control Bill would add to the range of controls available to Government by providing the power to control the electronic transfer of military technology currently only applicable for dual-use items. The Government are consulting EU partners about including an explicit reference to overseas production in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures contained in the Export Controls Bill will control the activities of British brokers in supplying arms if they make a deal outside of the United Kingdom. [18669]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: Clause 4 of the Export Control Bill would provide the Secretary of State with powers to make orders in connection with trade controls, commonly referred to as trafficking and brokering. This power would allow such controls to be imposed on acts carried out abroad by a United Kingdom person or by a person acting under the control of a United Kingdom person. As set out in the dummy orders relating to the Bill, which were made available to Parliament in October, the Government propose to introduce controls on trafficking and brokering by United Kingdom persons overseas of equipment whose export has been banned because of evidence of its use in torture and long-range missiles, and trafficking and brokering by such persons to any destination subject to a UN, EU, OSCE or UK arms embargo.

  Government Office for the North West
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will review the(a) operations and (b) procedures in the Government Office for the North West. [18964]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recently carried out a review of the business support functions of the whole Department, including those services provided via the Government Offices. On 22 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced key changes to be made to the role of the Government Offices. A review of the Government Office for the North West's performance during the first half of the 2001–02 financial year, against outcomes set in the Department of Trade and Industry's Business Plan, is under way.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) advice and (b) support the Government Office for the North West can provide to businesses on management buyouts. [18962]
  1048W
  Alan Johnson
  The Government Office for the North West and partners, including the Small Business Service and the North West Development Agency, provide general advice to businesses on a wide range of issues. Where a company is situated in an Assisted Area, the Government Office may be able to offer direct financial support for the management buyout.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason no file was held at the Government Office for the North West on the closure of Thomas Witter in Chorley. [18961]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government Office for the North West holds files where companies seek financial assistance or some other substantive relationship. No such approach has been received from Thomas Witter Ltd.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the role of the Government Office for the North West is in helping businesses that have been taken into administration. [18960]

  Alan Johnson
  The role the Government Office for the North West is to provide advice and support to local companies, whatever their situation, or to direct them to the most appropriate sources of advice and support. Provision of financial assistance depends on a number of factors including the size of the company concerned, the nature of its business and its location.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the quality of the operation of the Government Office for the North West; and if she will make a statement on the future of the Government Office for the North West. [18925]

  Alan Johnson
  A review of the Government Office for the North West's performance during the first half of the 2001–02 financial year, against outcomes set in the Department of Trade and Industry's Business Plan, is under way. On 22 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary' of State for Trade and Industry announced key changes that will be made to the DTI, including changes to the role of the Government Offices. There will continue to be a need for a strong DTI presence in the Government Office, but with a greater emphasis on influencing the whole range of government activity in the regions and on playing a stronger role in helping to shape policy and strategy centrally.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role the Government Office for the North West played in relation to Thomas Witter; and what procedures will be in place for staff at the Government Office for the North West to deal with the case of Thomas Witter. [18963]

  Alan Johnson
  Government Office officials brought the case of Thomas Witter Ltd. to the attention of the North West Development Agency, who agreed to consider whether support might be available from the intervention fund. Staff at the Government Office for the North West will continue to follow the correct procedures in dealing with this case.

  Aluminium Industry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the(a) financial and (b) employment situation in the British aluminium industry. [17654]

  Mr. Wilson
  With greater consolidation in the world aluminium industry over the last two years, rationalisation is inevitable. In response to the downturn in world aluminium markets major global players, notably Alcan and Alcoa (which both own plant in the UK), have brought forward plans for restructuring their respective global operations. Along with other countries, the UK will be affected.

  Solar Power
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the total amounts of grant aid available in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 for the installation of domestic solar water heating systems, together with (i) the name of each local project responsible for administering this budget, (ii) the targets set in these financial years for each local project and (iii) their budget allocation. [16632]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are no grants available for the installation of solar water heating systems from central Government at present, though professionally installed systems have benefited from a reduced rate (5 per cent.) of VAT since April 2000. Government do not maintain a register of the number of systems installed and neither does the trade association, though it is probably somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 systems a year.

  There are various incentives and grants available from individual local authorities and organisations and from some utilities. Some useful examples can be found on the Energy Saving Trust website www.practicalhelp.org.uk or on the website of the trade association www.solartradeassociation.org.uk

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the total amount of grant aid available in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02, for the installation of photovoltaic panels and roofing together with (i) the name of each local project responsible for administering the budget, (ii) the targets set in both of these financial years and (iii) their budget allocation. [16634]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has funded two rounds of the Domestic PV Systems Field Trial in 2000 and 2001, together supporting some 32 projects (over 500 homes) for the budget of £5.4 million. In addition, a Call for Proposals for the Large-Scale Building—Integrated PV Field Trial for Public Buildings is currently open. This should see around 15 projects on schools, hospitals etc. being supported for the budget of £3 million, and the results should be known by the end of February 2002.

  The names of the nine project teams from the first round of the Domestic Field Trial will be included in a newsletter being prepared by the Building Research Establishment, and a copy will be sent to my hon. Friend and copies placed in the Libraries of the House. Summaries of the 23 successful projects from the second round are attached to the press release of 22 October on the DTI website, www.dti.gov.uk. No targets were set for these financial years.
  1050W
  Looking to the future, the Department is currently working up the design for the first phase of the Major PV Demonstration Programme, announced in the Government's White Paper "Opportunity for All" on 13 February 2001. This has £20 million allocated over the next two financial years, and it is envisaged it will be open to applications from all types and sizes of building, with an average 50 per cent. capital grant on offer. There are no specific targets as yet, but it is expected that the first phase will result in up to 3,000 domestic roof-top systems and a couple of hundred larger non-domestic installations. Targets for subsequent phases will depend on the success of the first phase and the level of funding available.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if the Government have(a) transferred and (b) approved the transfer of controlled goods to (i) the Northern Alliance, (ii) its component factions and (iii) other non-state actors operating in Afghanistan since 11 September; [18215]

  (2) what plans the Government have to facilitate the delivery of controlled goods to (a) the Northern Alliance, (b) its component factions and (c) other non-state actors operating in or around Afghanistan; [18220]

  (3) what plans the Government have to transfer controlled goods to (a) the Northern Alliance, (b) its component factions and (c) other non-state actors operating in Afghanistan; [18216]

  (4) if the Government have facilitated the delivery of controlled goods to (a) the Northern Alliance, (b) its component factions and (c) other non-state actors operating in Afghanistan since 11 September; [18217]

  (5) what plans the Government have to fund weapons purchases by (a) the Northern Alliance, (b) its component factions and (c) other non-state actors operating in Afghanistan; [18226]

  (6) if the Government have funded weapons purchases by (a) the Northern Alliance, (b) its component factions and (c) other non-state actors operating in Afghanistan since 11 September. [18221]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are involved in military operations in self-defence against international terrorists within Afghanistan. Information and plans about these operations are extremely sensitive, and it would not be in the public interest for them to be disclosed. In my opinion, exemptions la) and b) (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information apply here.

  Public Service Orders
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funds are available from(a) the Treasury and (b) the EU for the subsidising of public service orders. [18728]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  1051W
  Public Service Obligations (PSOs) are at present imposed in the UK only on lifeline routes within Scotland. These routes receive subsidies from the Scottish Executive and the Island Councils. There is no provision for the EU to subsidise air services which are subject to PSOs.

DEFENCE

  War Pensions
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2002. [19996]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is set out in the table. The Annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2002 will take place from the week beginning 8 April.

  War pensions rates

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates 2001

  Rates 2002

  Disablement Pensions (100% rates)

  Officer (£ per annum)

  6,251.00

  6,356.00

  Other ranks

  119.80

  121.80

  Age allowances

  40–50%

  8.00

  8.15

  over 50 but not over 70%

  12.35

  12.55

  over 70 but over 90%

  17.55

  17.85

  over 90%

  24.70

  25.10

  Disablement gratuity

  Specified minor injury (minimum)

  762.00

  775.00

  Specified minor injury (maximum)

  5,695.00

  5,792.00

  Unspecified minor injury (minimum)

  316.00

  321.00

  Unspecified minor injury (maximum)

  7,406.00

  7,532.00

  Unemployability allowance

  Personal

  74.00

  75.25

  Adult dependency increase

  41.75

  42.45

  Increase for first child

  9.70

  9.85

  Increase for subsequent children

  11.35

  11.55

  Invalidity allowance

  Higher rate

  14.65

  14.90

  Middle rate

  9.30

  9.50

  Lower rate

  4.65

  4.75

  Constant attendance allowance

  Exception rate

  90.40

  92.00

  Intermediate rate

  67.80

  69.00

  Full day rate

  45.20

  46.00

  Part day rate

  22.60

  23.00

  Comforts allowance

  Higher rate

  19.40

  19.70

  Lower rate

  9.70

  9.85

  Mobility supplement

  43.10

  43.85

  Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

  45.16

  45.92

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  45.20

  46.00

  Severe disablement occupational allowance

  22.60

  23.00

  Clothing allowance (£ per annum)

  154.00

  157.00

  Education allowance (£ per annum) (maximum)

  120.00

  120.00

  1052W

  War pensions rates

  Weekly rates unless otherwise shown

  Rates 2001

  Rates 2002

  War widow's pension

  Widow (private)

  90.45

  92.00

  Widow (NCO)

  90.75

  92.30

  Widow—officer (£ pa maximum)

  5,594.00

  5,689.00

  Childless widow u-40 (private)

  21.75

  22.12

  Childless widow u-40 (NCO)

  21.75

  22.12

  Childless widow (Officer maximum £s pa)

  5,594.00

  5,689.00

  Supplementary pension

  58.95

  59.95

  Age allowance

  (a) age 65 to 69

  10.35

  10.55

  (b) age 70 to 79

  19.85

  20.20

  (c) age 80 and over

  29.55

  30.05

  Children's allowance

  Increase for first child

  14.30

  14.55

  Increase for subsequent children

  15.95

  16.20

  Orphan's pension

  Increase for first child

  16.20

  16.50

  Increase for subsequent children

  17.85

  18.15

  Unmarried dependant living as spouse (maximum)

  88.40

  89.95

  Rent allowance (maximum)

  34.20

  34.80

  Adult orphan's pension (maximum)

  69.75

  70.95

  Widower's pension

  Private (maximum)

  90.45

  92.00

  Officer (£ per annum) (maximum)

  5,594.00

  5,689.00

  RAF Halton
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the properties at RAF Halton which his Department(a) has disposed of in the last five years, (b) classifies as surplus to requirements and (c) plans to classify as surplus to requirements. [17644]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: Three minor disposals of garden or amenity land of minimal value have been made over the past five years. In addition, 12 properties were transferred permanently to Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) as part of the sale of the Married Quarters Estate in November 1996 with a further 82 properties following on 1 June 2001.

  Halton Hospital plus an area adjoining the south-west corner known as The Old Pumping Station at Warneford Avenue (0.4ha) has been classified as surplus to requirements. A further 57 properties are likely to be handed back to AHL in March 2002.

  Halton House officers' mess may become surplus in due course. However, the ongoing Defence Training Review includes RAF Halton and it is too early to say what the outcome will be. There are no plans to declare any further family quarters at Halton surplus to requirements in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Defence Estates has set a target date for the disposal of the site of the Princess Mary Hospital, RAF Halton. [17646]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: We anticipate that the site will be sold in March 2003.

  Civil Affairs Group
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and where elements of the Civil Affairs Group have been deployed on operations; and what the number of personnel involved was. [18870]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: The Civil Affairs Group was formed initially in 1997. The numbers of Civil Affairs Group personnel deployed on operations, and the locations and dates of those deployments are shown in the table.

  Dates

  Number

  Regular

  TA

  OP Palatine—Bosnia

  November 1997 to May 1998

  14

  —

  4

  November 1997 to May 1998

  1,34

  4

  2

  22

  —

  —

  OP Agricola—Macedonia/Kosovo/Albania

  February 1999 to June 1999

  1l

  1

  —

  April 1999 to July 1999

  13

  —

  3

  22

  —

  2

  June to July 1999

  12

  1

  1

  22

  2

  —

  July 1999 to August 1999

  12

  —

  2

  22

  —

  2

  July 1999 to October 1999

  1,32

  —

  2

  22

  —

  2

  October 1999 to December 1999

  1,33

  —

  3

  23

  1

  2

  May 2001 to January 2002

  21

  —

  1

  OP Langar—East Timor

  August 1999 to September 1999

  11

  1

  —

  September 1999 to December 1999

  11

  1

  —

  OP Pallister/Silkman—Sierra Leone

  April 1999 to June 1999

  12

  2

  —

  November 2000 to February 2001

  11

  1

  —

  January 2001 to June 2001

  11

  —

  1

  21

  1

  —

  February 2001 to May 2001

  11

  1

  —

  June 2001 to October 2001

  22

  2

  —

  September 2001 to January 2002

  12

  —

  2

  1 Officers

  2 Other ranks (ORs)

  3 Denote that the numbers include personnel not on the Civil Affairs Group establishment but who were trained by the Group and deployed with them to undertake Civil Affairs and Civil/Military Co-operation tasks.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to deploy elements of the Civil Affairs Group to Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [18871]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: The situation in Afghanistan continues to be fluid and our forces remain well balanced to respond to events as they unfold. A core force package, including a detachment from the Civil Affairs Group, is maintained at very high readiness to deploy if required. Personnel from the Civil Affairs Group are already involved in planning and liaison tasks outside Afghanistan.

  POWs (Far East)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the advice as to their qualification on 1054W
  nationality grounds offered in the War Pensions Agency's leaflet 12 to potential claimants of the ex-gratia payment for British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during World War Two conforms to current guidance. [17149]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes. The War Pensions Agency Leaflet No. 12 lists among the potential claimants for the ex-gratia payment "surviving British civilians who were interned by the Japanese in the Far East during the Second World War". A separate War Pensions Agency note explaining the requirement to confirm a bloodline to the United Kingdom and how this can be done, is sent out with each claim form.

  EU Rapid Reaction Force
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes of role his Department has assessed to be required for the proposed EU rapid reaction force in consequence of the 11 September attacks. [18257]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans for a standing EU rapid reaction force.

  While the capabilities being developed under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) can also play an important role in any military response to international terrorism, the scope of ESDP should remain firmly focused on crisis-management tasks.

  Armed Forces (Drugs)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the armed forces compulsory drug testing programme; and if he will make a statement. [18412]

  Mr. Ingram
  Our policy is that drug misuse is incompatible with service in the armed forces. The use of random compulsory drug testing of staff sends a clear message to service personnel about this policy. In addition, it provides a means of measuring the level of drug misuse in the services, and whether the misuse of a particular drug, or class of drugs, is on the increase or is in decline. It is also an important means with which to assess and audit the effectiveness of the education programmes run by each of the services.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 373W, on the Territorial Army, for what reason the decision was taken to re-tender for the national advertising contract. [18842]

  Dr. Moonie
  In accordance with normal practice the national advertising contract for the Territorial Army and Regular Army is subject to regular review. The Army Training and Recruiting Agency's recruiting authorities, in conjunction with the Central Office of Information, reviewed the current contract and concluded that there was a need to refresh the current advertising campaign and that this was best achieved by a process of re-tendering.

  Gibraltar
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what talks have taken place with the Spanish Government
  1055W
  on their refusal to permit British military aircraft to fly over their airspace to Gibraltar; and what reason has been given by the Spanish Government for refusing to permit British military aircraft to fly through Spanish air space en route to Gibraltar. [19139]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no recent discussions with Spain about restrictions on British military aircraft flying through Spanish air space.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people(a) joined and (b) left the Army in each month between 1 May and 1 September. [16468]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of people joining and leaving the Army in each of the months between May and September is as follows:

  Month

  Joined1

  Left1

  May

  1,152

  1,186

  June

  782

  1,257

  July

  1,004

  1,136

  August

  1,157

  1,084

  1 The table shows all personnel who joined or left UK regular forces with the exception of illegal absentees. The list includes transferees from other services, Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and personnel joining from other nation's services.

  Exercise Saif Sareea 2
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions he gave to joint chiefs of staff not to proceed with exercise Saif Sareea 2; and if he will make a statement. [19375]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. The Ministry of Defence regularly reviews its forward programme and re-evaluates all commitments in the defence plan to ensure that they represent good value for money. Given its scale and importance, Exercise Saif Sareea 2 was kept under particularly careful review to ensure that it met this criteria and the armed forces training requirements. In the early part of 2000 a number of options for the exercise were investigated as part of this process. The review confirmed the importance of carrying out an exercise on this scale and at this distance from the UK. Recent events have proved this to be the case.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) number and (b) nature of the casualties sustained among British armed forces in Afghanistan. [19082]

  Mr. Hoon
  I can confirm that four service personnel were wounded on operations in Afghanistan, one seriously. They are all now back in the UK receiving treatment.

PRIME MINISTER

  E-democracy
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to further e-democracy. [20086]
  1056W
  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons to chair a new Cabinet Committee on e-democracy. The composition and terms of reference of the new committee are:

  Ministerial Committee on e-Democracy (MISC17)

  Composition

  The President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Chair)

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Financial Secretary to the Treasury

  Minister without Portfolio

  Minister of State for Transport. Local Government and Regions

  Minister of State for Home Affairs

  Minister of State for Trade and Industry

  Minister of State for Cabinet Office

  Parliamentary Secretary for the Leader of the House of Commons Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills

  Invited to attend

  The e-Envoy

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider ways of strengthening the democratic process by engaging the public and their elected representatives through the use of the internet and other electronic means."

  Pledge to British Muslims
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he(a) instructed or (b) agreed to the Cabinet secretary signing the pledge to British Muslims; and if he will make a statement. [15120]

  The Prime Minister
  The secretary of the Cabinet signed the pledge as head of the home civil service because he thought it particularly important at this time to reassure Muslims and those of different faiths within the civil service through a positive statement of this kind. Diversity is an important part of the agenda for the reform of the civil service. He believed it to be a non-controversial statement put forward by a well-established organisation affiliated to the Muslim Council of Britain and he understood that it had the support of all the main political parties. He did not act under instruction.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was invited by the Islamic Society of Britain to sign their pledge to British Muslims; when a text for the pledge was first communicated to him; when he agreed to sign; and whether the text first communicated to him was that which was signed on his behalf. [15121]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not our practice to give details on such matters. The Deputy Prime Minister signed it on the Government's behalf and all three main political parties were represented at the launch of the pledge.

  Pledge
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the pledges signed by(a) the holder of the office of Cabinet secretary and (b) himself since 1 May 1997. [15119]
  1057W
  The Prime Minister
  No record of pledges is kept. I signed a variety of expressions of support, as previous Prime Ministers have done before me.

  Successive secretaries of the Cabinet, as head of the home civil service, have made public commitments to the continued reform of the civil service and to particular aspects of it.

  Suez Medal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to issue a Suez medal for service between 1951 and 1954. [18177]

  The Prime Minister
  The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals which advises Her Majesty the Queen on the issue of such medals has not made any recommendation on this issue. But I am sure it will consider any representations the hon. Member may wish to make on this matter.

  International Crime Tribunal
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the United Nations Security Council to establish an international criminal tribunal to try the perpetrators of the attacks on 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [18851]

  The Prime Minister
  International criminal courts or tribunals are not a substitute for national jurisdictions, and never have been. They are there to take action against individuals who have committed crimes for which a relevant national jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to take action. That does not apply in this case. The United States has every justification to try those responsible for the attacks in its own country.

  Decommissioning (IRA)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will request from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning the inventory of the weapons decommissioned by the IRA. [18861]

  The Prime Minister
  On 23 October the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that it had witnessed a quantity of IRA arms being put beyond use. It confirmed the material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives.

  However, in the interest of furthering the decommissioning process, the Commission declined to provide further details. We all must respect the Commission's own judgment on how best to proceed to fulfill its mandate, the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms.

  I look forward to further progress on the arms issue alongside the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and the long-term stability of the Northern Ireland political institutions.

  Saif Sareea 2
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the joint chiefs of the defence staff regarding(a) possible cancellation of and (b) reduction in the scope of exercise Saif Sareea 2. [19376]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Rail Regulator
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to change the powers of the Rail Regulator. [15502]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: We intend to streamline the existing structure while still recognising that there will be a continued need for some form of independent economic regulation.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what track access charges have been paid by Eurostar for use of tracks(a) between Waterloo and the Channel Tunnel, (b) within the Channel Tunnel, (c) on French rail lines and (d) on Belgian rail lines, for each year since the commencement of operations. [15950]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Track Access Charges for Eurostar services are commercially sensitive and cannot therefore be made public.

  Track Access Charges in France and Belgium are not paid by Eurostar (UK) Ltd. but are dealt with by their business partners, SNCF and SNCB.

  Car Ownership (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people owned a car in the Buckingham constituency in the last year for which information is available. [17846]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has no information on the number of people owning cars in the Buckingham constituency. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency record shows that the number of currently licensed cars registered to keepers in the Buckingham constituency at December 2000 was 44,899.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) council and (b) Registered Social Landlord (RSL) properties there are where the target rents are below current rents at current prices; and how many and what percentage of (i) council and (ii) RSL properties there are in each English region where the target rent is at or below current rents at current prices. [17824]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not currently available. Social landlords will only have completed their property valuations and calculated their target rents under the reforms around the end of this calendar year.
  1059W
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the number and percentage of(a) council and (b) RSL rents scheduled to fall as a result of his policy to restructure rents in (i) England and (ii) each region. [17825]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not available in the form requested. In particular, the figures critically depend on assumptions about what would have happened to rents in the absence of restructuring.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which phases of the infrastructure upgrades on the East Coast Line have so far been(a) started and on what date and (b) completed and on what date; on what dates the subsequent phases of the upgrades are due (i) to start and (ii) to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [17790]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Phase 1 of the project, which commenced in 1999, provides capacity improvements to the Leeds Station area and is expected to be completed by 2004–05. The Strategic Rail Authority is continuing to take forward project development work on the upgrade.

  Millennium Dome
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has set a deadline for concluding(a) the sale and (b) a lease of (i) the Millennium Dome and (ii) the site of the Millennium Dome. [18069]

  Self-contained units built

  1998–99

  Total

  Built without subsidy

  Built with subsidy

  Allocation £000

  North British Housing Ltd.

  795

  112

  683

  16,092

  Sanctuary Housing Association

  677

  34

  643

  7,670

  London and Quadrant Housing Trust

  532

  0

  532

  14,828

  Riverside Housing Association Ltd.

  465

  0

  465

  8,812

  The Guinness Trust

  439

  0

  439

  10,295

  Hyde Housing Association Ltd.

  432

  13

  419

  13,299

  Northern Counties Housing Association Ltd.

  392

  114

  278

  5,337

  William Sutton Trust

  327

  0

  327

  4,512

  Home Group Ltd.

  291

  56

  235

  12,622

  Anchor Trust

  282

  0

  282

  3,892

  Total

  4,632

  329

  4,303

  97,358

  Self-contained units built

  1999–2000

  Total

  Built without subsidy

  Built with subsidy

  Allocation £000

  North British Housing Ltd.

  1,131

  569

  562

  14,947

  Home Group Ltd.

  593

  0

  593

  12,089

  The Guinness Trust

  584

  0

  584

  7,457

  Sanctuary Housing Association

  495

  5

  490

  2,894

  Hyde Housing Association Ltd.

  458

  17

  441

  10,650

  London and Quadrant Housing Trust

  398

  0

  398

  12,880

  Northern Counties Housing Association Ltd.

  312

  31

  281

  5,464

  Riverside Housing Association Ltd.

  291

  109

  182

  5,806

  Anchor Trust

  151

  0

  151

  11,147

  Paddington Churches Housing Association Ltd.

  104

  0

  104

  4,681

  Total

  4,517

  731

  3,786

  88,016

  1060W
  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 906W.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what offers have been made(a) to purchase and (b) to lease (i) the Millennium Dome and (ii) the site of the Millennium Dome since 1 January. [18070]

  Ms Keeble
  While the process to secure a long-term use of the Dome continues, it would not be appropriate to publish such information, which is commercially confidential. To reveal any of these details would undermine on-going discussions, would not be conducive to a successful conclusion and would be against the public interest.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many houses were built by the 10 largest housing associations in each of the last three years; how many are projected for next financial year; and what grant was payable to each association in each of those years. [18351]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: (a) Based on information supplied by the Housing Corporation, the number of self-contained units built by the 10 largest housing associations in each of the last three years are as shown in the following three tables. Also shown is the total grant allocated to the housing association during each year for building purposes.
  1061W

  Self-contained units built

  2000–01

  Total

  Built without subsidy

  Built with subsidy

  Allocation £000

  Home Group Ltd.

  705

  5

  700

  7,605

  North British Housing Ltd.

  577

  47

  530

  13,350

  The Guinness Trust

  416

  0

  416

  14,544

  Hyde Housing Association Ltd.

  416

  10

  406

  15,834

  Northern Counties Housing Association Ltd.

  306

  45

  261

  4,400

  London and Quadrant Housing Trust

  284

  0

  284

  22,106

  Riverside Housing Association Ltd.

  274

  62

  212

  4,827

  Anchor Trust

  132

  0

  132

  12,615

  Sanctuary Housing Association

  111

  0

  1l1

  6,315

  Peabody Trust

  56

  12

  44

  3,659

  Total

  3,277

  181

  3,096

  105,255

  Notes:

  1. The top 10 RSLs/HAs by size, for each of the three periods, was determined by totalling, for each RSL, the following figures:

  their total stock of self-contained units;

  the number of hostel/shared housing bedspaces;

  the number of units where the RSL had an interest in a shared ownership scheme or a leasehold for the elderly scheme;

  the stock managed for non-RSLs (stock managed for other RSLs was excluded).

  2. It is important to note that grants allocated to an RSL may not necessarily be reflected in the number of units built within that same year.

  3. The total grant allocation is the sum of the ADP grant allocated by the Housing Corporation and the LASHG grant allocated by the local authority.

  4. The number of units built annually comprises new-build self-contained units only.

  (b) Housing Corporation allocations to the top 10 RSLs in 2001–02 for the construction of new units are as follows:

  ADP allocation £000

  Number of units to be built with this allocation

  Peabody Trust

  17,736

  243

  Riverside Housing Association Ltd.

  2,034

  95

  Sanctuary Housing Association

  1,328

  74

  Northern Counties Housing Association Ltd.

  3,282

  108

  North British Housing Ltd.

  9,522

  283

  Home Group Ltd.

  11,569

  288

  Hyde Housing Association Ltd.

  15,565

  315

  The Guinness Trust

  9,883

  243

  London and Quadrant Housing Trust

  22,538

  352

  Anchor Trust

  8,153

  140

  Total

  101,610

  2,141

  Note:

  The allocation figures represent the start-of-year position for accepted allocations prior to grant confirmation. Note that the allocation in the table refers to ADP allocations by the Housing Corporation only. Information on LASHG grants for the current year are not yet available.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many households in council and RSL properties will not have reached their target rents by 2012–13. [18625]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not available. In particular, rate of increase of actual council and RSL rents over the next 10 years will depend, among other things, on the outcome of future spending reviews (for council rents) and periodic reviews by the Housing Corporation (for RSL rents).

  Aviation Industry
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what calculations his Department has made as to the additional costs incurred as a result of increased security measures 1062W
  at United Kingdom airports since 11 September by (a) United Kingdom airports, (b) airlines and (c) other service providers. [18451]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following informal contacts between my Department and the aviation industry we estimate that the extra security measures introduced since 11 September will have cost the aviation industry about £50 million by the end of the year.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to assist(a) United Kingdom airports and (b) airlines in respect of additional costs incurred as a result of increased security measures at United Kingdom airports. [18452]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are considering whether emergency aid should be paid to the UK aviation industry to compensate for the events of 11 September, and we will take the guidelines on state aid issued by the European Commission and endorsed by the EU Transport Council fully into account in any decision.

  Car Ownership (Arundel and South Downs)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people owned a car in the constituency of Arundel and South Downs in the last year for which figures are available. [18311]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has no information on the number of people owning cars in the Arundel and South Downs constituency. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency record shows that the number of currently licensed cars registered to keepers in the Arundel and South Downs constituency at December 2000 was 47,966.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of non-secure lettings made by local authorities
  1063W
  by region in each of the years 1997–98 to 2000–01 were (a) introductory tenancies and (b) lettings made to discharge their duties to homeless households under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. [18300]

  Ms Keeble
  Information on the number of lettings made by local authorities to discharge their duties to homeless households under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 is not available centrally.

  The table gives the available information on

  (a) the proportion of local authority non-secure lettings that were introductory tenancies; and

  (b) the proportion of non-secure lettings to homeless households in priority need. The latter will include lettings that are made to discharge the local authorities duties to homeless households under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 and may include some lettings that are introductory tenancies (that would end the section 193 duty).

  Introductory tenancies as a percentage of local authority non-secure lettings and percentage of all non-secure lettings given to homeless households in priority need

  Percentage

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  North East

  Introductory tenancies

  84

  92

  93

  Homeless households

  19

  12

  14

  North West

  Introductory tenancies

  95

  97

  98

  Homeless households

  13

  12

  14

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  Introductory tenancies

  68

  68

  64

  Homeless households

  30

  29

  34

  East Midlands

  Introductory tenancies

  36

  73

  77

  Homeless households

  68

  29

  22

  West Midlands

  Introductory tenancies

  60

  87

  92

  Homeless households

  33

  16

  25

  East of England

  Introductory tenancies

  20

  26

  42

  Homeless households

  80

  80

  60

  London

  Introductory tenancies

  29

  51

  56

  Homeless households

  75

  59

  68

  South East

  Introductory tenancies

  12

  25

  40

  Homeless households

  93

  81

  67

  South West

  Introductory tenancies

  27

  67

  69

  Homeless households

  78

  46

  47

  England

  Introductory tenancies

  63

  77

  81

  Homeless households

  40

  29

  30

  Note:

  Homeless households are households in priority need for whom a statutory duty has been accepted by a local authority under homelessness provisions of Housing Acts. Lettings to these households have been expressed as a percentage of lettings to "new" tenants i.e. excluding transfers and exchanges between existing tenants of social landlords.

  Source:

  DTLR Housing Investment Programme returns (annual)

  Detling Beacon
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if there has been an increase in(a) air traffic using and (b) night flights in the corridor five miles either side of Detling Beacon in Kent since 11 September. [18471]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are not aware of any increase in either air traffic users or night flights in the corridor five miles either side of the Detling Beacon since 11 September.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will announce his decisions on the first round of local authorities' bids for additional resources to establish arm's-length housing management companies to improve their housing standards. [18828]

  Mr. Byers
  We have decided that conditional allocations should be made to the following local authorities sufficient to support capital investment through arm's-length companies on housing improvements in 2002–03 and 2003–04 up to the sums indicated:

  £ million

  Local authority

  Conditional allocation

  Ashfield

  24.0

  Derby

  31.1

  Hounslow

  35.0

  Kirklees

  62.5

  Rochdale

  24.2

  Stockton-on-Tees

  44.5

  Westminster

  20.3

  Wigan

  58.3

  If confirmed, these allocations should ensure that the housing stock of most of the authorities concerned meets the Government's decent homes standard by 2006.

  Final allocations will depend on services delivered by the arm's-length company achieving an excellent rating from the Housing Inspectorate. Exceptionally, for round one only, we are prepared to allocate 50 per cent. of conditional allocations where companies are assessed as good and likely to improve. Authorities will also require the Secretary of State's approval under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985, the granting of which will be subject to the criteria set out in my Department's Guidance last April, including criteria on the responsibilities, constitution and staffing of the arm' s-length companies.

  We have been unable to accept the bid from Kensington and Chelsea because it did not fully separate strategic and operational responsibilities between the council and the proposed company as required by the arm's-length principle.

  Authorities to which we have been unable to make conditional allocations in round one are invited to consider applying again. The closing date for applications in round two is the end of February 2002.

  Housing Stock (Radon Emissions)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many
  1065W
  discretionary grants have been awarded for remedial work to reduce the risk from radon emissions in (a) Devon and (b) England and Wales since 1996; and what has been the total cost. [18356]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The Government have made available to all local housing authorities in England and Wales a single capital pot of £705 million this year for housing capital expenditure purposes. Any discretionary grant given by an authority for radon remedial work will be from this source. We do not have reliable centrally collected figures on the number of such discretionary grants for this or earlier years.

  Rural Public Transport
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 423W, on rural public transport, if he will list (a) the local authorities that have received local transport capital funding, (b) the organisations that received central Government funding from the Rural Bus Challenge and (c) the organisations that received support from the Rail Passenger Partnership in 2001–02. [18835]

  Ms Keeble
  All local highway authorities in England (outside London) are allocated funding annually for local transport capital investment through the Local Transport Plan process. The allocation of the £1.36 billion capital funding made available for local transport in 2001–02 was announced in December 2000.

  The following 34 English local authorities have received funding to date in 2001–02 from the Rural Bus Challenge Fund:

  Bedfordshire

  Cumbria

  Devon

  Dorset

  East Riding

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Herefordshire

  Hertfordshire

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Milton Keynes

  Norfolk

  North Lincolnshire

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Plymouth

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Shropshire

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Suffolk

  Thurrock

  Torbay

  1066W

  Tyne and Wear

  Warwickshire

  West Yorkshire

  Wiltshire

  Worcestershire.

  The Rail Passenger Partnership scheme funds partnerships that may consist of local authorities, passenger transport executives, train operators or public transport consortia. To date, for 2001–02, funding for the following 21 partnership schemes have been approved by the Strategy Rail Authority:

  Vale of Glamorgan Rail Services

  Anglia Service Improvement Package

  Brentford Station Improvements

  Taff Corridor Rolling Stock

  Thornaby Station Facilities

  Additional Class 333 trailer vehicles

  Clitheroe and Blackburn Rail Services

  Carmarthen-Milford-Haven Services

  Swanage Rail Services

  Haverfordwest Station Improvements

  Burnham-on-Crouch Station Refurbishment

  Heart of Wales Rail Services

  Hexham-Carlisle Passenger Information

  Waterbeach Station Facilities

  Redruth Station Refurbishment

  Tamar Valley (Winter Sunday Service)

  Tees Valley Cycle Spaces

  Liskeard Station Refurbishment

  Southminster Branch Line

  FGE Cycle Spaces

  Traintaxi—national scheme.

  Affordable Housing
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) number and (b) proportion of affordable housing units (i) have been built since March 2001 and (ii) will be built by March 2002. [18788]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of dwellings built by registered social landlords and local authorities in England in the six months from April 2001 to September 2001 is 7,300. This figure is 11 per cent. of all dwellings built in the period. Figures on the number of dwellings built by tenure are published monthly in the Housebuilding Statistical Release. The next release, giving figures for October 2001, will be published on 6 December. Information on how many dwellings will be built by March 2002 is not available.

  Small Business (Rate Relief)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps she has taken to introduce legislation to provide rate relief for small businesses on former agricultural sites. [18784]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Provisions for a five year 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief scheme for new small businesses on what had previously been agricultural premises are contained in the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001. The Act covers England and
  1067W
  Wales. The Act was commenced in England on 15 August. It has not yet been commenced in Wales, which is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Green Belt Planning Applications
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for each of the last 10 years the number of planning applications approved in the green belt for(a) residential and (b) commercial properties for each region of England. [16631]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department, and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Daisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will abolish the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme before the 2002–03 settlement. [18922]

  Dr. Whitehead
  An announcement on whether the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme will be operated in 2002–03 will be made as part of the statement on the provisional local government finance settlement, which will be made on Tuesday 4 December, subject to the progress of Parliamentary business.

  Car Safety
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve the safety of cars with regard to pedestrians. [16491]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) on 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 505W.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications were awaiting a decision by him on(a) the most recent date, (b) 31 December 2000, (c) 31 December 1999, (d) 31 December 1998 and (e) 31 December 1997. [19201]

  Ms Keeble
  Information available is in the following form.

  Date

  Numbers of called-in planning applications not decided1

  31 March 1998

  57

  31 March 1999

  19

  31 March 2000

  60

  31 March 2001

  28

  1 These figures are the difference between the number of applications called-in in the year ending 31 March and the number cases decided in that year.

  Regional Assemblies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his timetable is for elected regional assemblies in England. [19311]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As the Deputy Prime Minister stated in the summer, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on regional governance. This will set out our plans for taking forward the manifesto commitment on elected regional government in England and indicate a timetable for setting up the first elected assemblies.

  A27
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish his(a) proposals and (b) timetable for road safety improvements for pedestrians at the Boundstone College crossing on the A27 at Sompting in West Sussex. [19301]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Waltham to Tim Loughton, dated 29 November 2001:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the proposal and timetable for road safety improvements at the Boundstone College crossing on the A27 at Sompting.
  A Public Consultation on four options for a grade separated pedestrian facility took place at Boundstone Community College in June 1999. The results were published in July 2000, indicating that the preferred option was a footbridge for pedestrians and dismounted cyclists.
  The bridge is being designed in detail and we expect to publish details of the proposals next Summer. Progress thereafter will depend on the reaction to those proposals. Subject to that, construction could commence in 2003/04.
  If you would like further details the Project Manager, Ing Fischer, at our Dorking office would be pleased to help you. His telephone number is 01306 878362.

  Registered Vehicle Keepers (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many registered vehicle keepers there are in the Buckingham constituency. [16912]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 November 2001, c. 499W]: The number of currently licensed vehicles registered to keepers in the Buckingham constituency at December 2000 was 53,316.

  Traffic Congestion
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his projections are for(a) traffic congestion, (b) the number of vehicles on the roads in the UK and (c) the number of car passenger and bus passenger miles travelled by (i) 2005, (ii) 2010 and (iii) 2020. [19302]

  Mr. Jamieson
  (a) "Transport 2010—The 10 Year Plan" forecasts that, as a result of the Plan, congestion in England will be some 6 per cent. lower in 2010 than in 2000. No forecasts have yet been made for 2005 or 2020.

  1069W
  (b) The Table shows the latest forecasts of the number of cars and light vans available to households for private use in Great Britain:

  Year

  Cars in GB

  2000

  25,127,000

  2005

  27,249,000

  2010

  29,480,000

  2020

  33,365,000

  Source:

  TEMPRO (Tripend Model Program) Version 4.1

  DTLR does not make forecasts of the total number of heavy goods vehicles or buses.

  (c) DTLR has not made forecasts of car or bus passenger miles.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will review the role of English Partnerships in relation to the former new towns; [18792]

  (2) if he will return the assets in new towns held by English Partnerships to local authorities; [18794]

  (3) if he will ensure that regeneration of former new towns is assisted by reinvestment of assets realised by English Partnerships locally and without clawback. [18793]

  Ms Keeble
  A review of all English Partnerships' activities is now under way. It is, of course, considering a wide range of issues, including EP's role in the former new towns and the future ownership of land there.

  I expect the first part of the review to be completed by about Christmas, with a second part, looking in more detail at the implementation of the recommendations, ready by Easter 2002.

  River Thames
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made on the recommendations made by Lord Justice Clarke to increase safety on the River Thames. [19912]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House an updated summary of the action taken on each of Lord Justice Clarke' s 74 recommendations.

  Park Homes Working Party
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress he has made on his consideration of the report of the Park Homes Working Party. [20017]

  Ms Keeble
  I am pleased to announce today the publication of the Government's response to the report of the Park Homes Working Party, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The response 1070W
  gives a detailed response to each of the Working Party's recommendations and indicates how we intend to take them forward. It also includes a summary of the responses received to our consultation on the Working Party's report last year. The response indicates our commitment to taking forward the agenda for reform in this area, with the aim of ensuring a fair balance of interests between the rights and responsibilities of residents and site owners of park homes.

  Local Government Funding (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the allocation of central Government funds to(a) Wycombe district council and (b) Buckinghamshire county council in each of the last four years. [14870]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 November 2001, c. 40W]: The general grants (Revenue Support Grant, National Non Domestic Rates and damping grants) and ring-fenced grants for Buckinghamshire for 1989–99 was £211.229 million.

  Terrorism
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what have been the estimated costs of(a) emergency planning and (b) other operations undertaken by local authorities in connection with events following the 11 September terrorist attacks; if additional costs will be supported by central Government; and if he will make a statement. [13843]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 November 2001]: Central Government have not required local authorities to do any additional emergency planning work since 11 September, but immediately reminded them that they should ensure that their emergency arrangements, including contact details, are up to date. No information is held centrally on 'other operations' which may have been undertaken by local authorities following 11 September attacks.

  Subsequently, in October a "Response to the Deliberate Release of Chemicals and Biological Agents—Guidance for Local Authorities" was issued. As with any guidance issued, it inevitably requires local authorities to review their emergency arrangements, and probably revise some aspects of their plans, but this does not attract significant additional costs.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions the Government have had with FLS Aerospace about the future of their operation at Manchester Airport. [18273]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have not had any discussions with FLS Aerospace about the future of their operation at Manchester Airport.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Justice Review
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will extend the period of consultation on the criminal justice review. [19995]

  Mr. Browne
  In the light of representations made by the political parties and those involved in delivering criminal justice services, I have decided to extend the period of consultation on the Government's response to the criminal justice review by a further four weeks to 7 January 2002.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who was consulted before the proposed badges for the Police Service of Northern Ireland were designed; and at what cost. [18877]

  Jane Kennedy
  No one was consulted before the designs were first commissioned. The aggregate costs for the sample emblem designs were £41,329.45 (inclusive of VAT). This figure includes research, presentation materials and colour photocopying.

  Decommissioning
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the next event in the decommissioning process to take place. [11993]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported on 23 October that it had witnessed a quantity of IRA arms being put beyond use according to the terms of the decommissioning schemes and regulations. However, in the interest of furthering the process of putting all arms beyond use, the commission declined to provide further details including on the timing of further events.

  The commission's mandate under the terms of the Good Friday agreement is to facilitate the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. To that end, it reported that it is continuing contact with the IRA representative. The Government have every confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues and we should all respect their wishes on how best to proceed to fulfil their mandate.

  RUC Policing and Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the attendance at the RUC policing and human rights conference broken down by(a) perceived community background, (b) gender and (c) occupation; and what was the cost of (i) organising and (ii) promoting this event. [17760]

  Jane Kennedy
  Approximately 230 delegates attended the policing and human rights conference on each of the two days on which the event took place (1 and 2 October). Community background information was not sought from 1072W
  delegates, nor were records kept of gender and occupation breakdown. However, the organisations invited to attend the conference are as listed.

  Age Concern

  Alliance Party

  Amnesty International

  Amsterdam Police

  An Garda Síochána

  Asylum Seekers

  Bar Council of Northern Ireland

  Belfast Islamic Society

  Bramshill Police College

  British Deaf Association

  British Irish Rights Watch

  British Telecom

  Catholic Church

  Chinese Welfare Association

  Church of Ireland

  Committee on the Administration of Justice

  Community Development Centre

  Community Safety Centre

  Council of Europe

  Danish Centre for Human Rights

  Danish National Police Academy

  Deaf Senior Citizens Northern Ireland

  Democratic Unionist Party

  Director of Public Prosecutions

  Disability Action

  Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

  Evangelical Alliance

  Finnish Police

  Gendarmerie Nationale (France)

  Greater Belfast Community Network

  Greater East Belfast Partnership

  Greater Shankill Alternatives

  Guide Dogs Association

  Home Office

  Human Rights Commission, Republic of Ireland

  Independent Commission on Policing

  Indian Community Centre

  Inner East Youth Project

  International Red Cross

  Law Society of Northern Ireland

  Malta Police

  Mediation Network

  Men's Advisory Project

  Methodist Church

  Metropolitan Police

  Muti-cultural Resources Centre

  National Police Academy (Norway)

  Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  Northern Ireland Association for Community Restorative Justice

  1073W

  Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities

  Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Activity

  Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

  Northern Ireland Office

  Northern Ireland Women's Aid

  Northern Ireland Youth Centre

  Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers

  Oversight Commissioner's office

  Parades Commission for Northern Ireland

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  Police Federation for Northern Ireland

  Police Ombudsman's Office

  Presbyterian Church

  Progressive Unionist Party

  Queen's University Belfast

  Rainbow Project

  Rape Crisis Centre

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Royal National Institute for Deaf People

  RUC

  School of Police (Catalonia)

  Short Strand Community Forum

  Sinn Feín

  Social and Democratic Labour Party

  Tenants Action Group (Ballymena)

  Tenants Action Group (Belfast)

  The Blind Centre for Northern Ireland

  Travellers Movement Northern Ireland

  Ulster Unionist Party

  United Kingdom Unionist Party

  University of Essex

  University of Ulster

  Victim Support Northern Ireland

  Women's Coalition Party.

  In addition, community representatives from 97 per cent. of district command areas also attended.

  The total cost of the conference was £57,880.

  Police Informants
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the police in Northern Ireland paid to informers in the last year for which figures are available; how many informers received payments; and what the average payment made was. [17806]

  Jane Kennedy
  The police service of Northern Ireland does not comment on matters relating to the number of covert human intelligence sources as defined under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. However, I can say that a total of £176,580 was paid out for information received during the period 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2001.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regulation
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the cost to businesses of regulations introduced since 1997. [16488]

  Mr. Leslie
  All regulatory proposals likely to have a significant cost to business require a Regulatory Impact Assessment. Prior to the introduction of the Regulatory Impact Assessment process in 1998, Cost Compliance Assessments were used. These assessments are published by Departments and are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regulatory measures the Government(a) introduced and (b) abolished in the last year. [16474]

  Mr. Leslie
  During 2000, 3,487 pieces of primary and secondary legislation were introduced. Over 98 per cent. of the total relates to Statutory Instruments (SIs), the vast majority of which had only a local or temporary effect, such as routine air traffic and road closure orders. A better measure of the regulatory burden is the number of regulatory impact assessments produced by Departments for proposals imposing significant costs on business, charities or voluntary organisations. Last year, less than 5 per cent. of the total imposed significant costs.

  An estimate of the total number of regulatory measures abolished in the last year could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Government are determined to minimise the burden of regulation on business and others. The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 now provides a powerful tool for reforming over-burdensome, over-complex and outdated primary legislation. The Prime Minister has asked all Departments to identify further areas of legislation that might be reformed under the Act and other procedures.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what date his Department established a working group of officials to prepare his Department for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and on what dates this committee has met since it was set up. [14772]

  Mr. Leslie
  An Open Government Unit was established in the Cabinet Office early in 2000, with responsibility for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and other government openness initiatives within the Cabinet Office, the Unit will ensure that the Cabinet Office complies with the implementation plans set out in the paper placed in the Library of the House on 13 November 2001 by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), as stated in her answer on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 692W.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) direct and (b) indirect involvement the Government have had in the supply of Russian weapons to (i) the Northern Alliance, (ii) its component factions and (iii) other non-state actors operating in and around Afghanistan since 11 September. [17951]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are involved in military operations in self-defence against international terrorists within Afghanistan. Information and plans about these operations are extremely sensitive, and it would not be in the public interest for them to be disclosed. In my opinion, exemptions 1(a) and (b) (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information apply here.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 19 and 20 November; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [18019]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 19 November.

  The GAC adopted the sixteen 'A' Points listed in document number 14061/01. It also noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament and in its part-session of 22–25 October 2001 in its part-session in Strasbourg listed in document number 12865/01. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Libraries of both houses.

  World Trade Organisation

  Following a presentation by the Commission, the Council welcomed the decision, taken at the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Doha on 9–14 November, to launch a new round of multilateral trade negotiations.

  Work in other Council Formations

  The Presidency drew attention to the Secretariat's report of the main issues being discussed by other sectoral meetings of the Council of Ministers.

  Enlargement

  The Commission presented its Enlargement Strategy Paper and the Regular Progress Reports on the thirteen candidates. The GAC will discuss these further at its next session on 10 December in preparation for the Laeken European Council.

  Future of EU

  The GAC discussed, on the basis of a Presidency non-paper, preparations for a Declaration to be made at the Laeken European Council. The Presidency concluded that the Declaration would comprise three sections:

  (i) a political analysis of the state of the Union, including the perceptions and expectations of public opinion;

  (ii) themes for the debate on future of Europe, based on the Nice agenda, and comprising:

  —European Union objectives and policies

  1076W

  —Demarcation of powers between the Union and its member states

  —Democratic legitimacy

  —the Union's capability to decide and conduct its policies

  —Simplification and general presentation of the European project

  (iii) the Council Decision to convoke the Convention.

  The Presidency agreed to present its draft declaration to member states, taking account of their contributions, before the Presidency's pre-Laeken tour of EU capitals. The themes identified in the Presidency's draft declaration would be presented in the form of open questions.

  The Presidency identified some supplementary themes, which would be points of reference for the Laeken Declaration:

  —the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

  —the legitimacy of the European Parliament, the links between it and the EU's national Parliaments and the increased role of the latter;

  —preserving the acquis communautaire;

  —the enhanced external dimension of the Union;

  —the effectiveness of the Union's decision-making process.

  Middle East Peace Process

  Ministers reviewed the situation in the Middle East in the light of contracts made during:

  —the EuroMed Ministerial Conference in Brussels on 5 November;

  —the ministerial week of 9–16 November at the UN General Assembly; and

  the tour of the region by Guy Verhofstadt, Romano Prodi and Javier Solana.

  Ministers also completed preparations for the Second meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council, held on 20 November in Brussels, for which the GAC adopted an EU Declaration.

  Afghanistan

  The GAC adopted Conclusions. These welcomed the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1378 and reiterated the EU's support for the efforts of the UN Special Representative, in particular the objective to establish rapidly a transitional administration in Afghanistan. The GAC recalled that such efforts were intended to install a legitimate, broad-based, multi-ethnic government committed to establishing human rights. The EU would continue to participate in seeking a political solution. The Union called on the Northern Alliance to exercise restraint and to facilitate the rapid establishment of a new administration which enjoyed both national and international support. Humanitarian aid remained an absolute priority and would be subject to closer co-ordination between member states, the Commission, specialist humanitarian agencies, the Afghanistan Support Group and non-governmental organisations.

  While recognising the primary role of the Afghan people in determining their future, the GAC called on the UN and international financial institutions to devise a plan for the economic, social and institutional reconstruction of Afghanistan, which would help co-ordinate the efforts of the international community. The EU intended to participate actively in the meeting in Washington on 20 November.
  1077W
  The GAC decided it would appoint a Special Representative of Afghanistan, to work under the authority of the High Representative.

  Joint meeting with defence ministers: declaration on military capabilities

  In a joint meeting with defence ministers, the GAC issued a Declaration which outlined an action plan to take forward work to meet the Helsinki headline goal (the ability, by 2003, for member states to be able to deploy up to 60,000 personnel within 60 days for military crisis management operations).

  Joint meeting with interior ministers: declaration on police capabilities

  In a joint meeting with interior ministers the GAC adopted a Police Conference Declaration stating that the policing targets set by the Feira European Council had been met. The target was for 5,000 police officers to be available for EU and other international policing missions by 2003, including 1,000 for rapid deployment.

  EU internal action following the terrorist attacks in the USA

  The GAC reviewed the work conducted to date and envisaged in implementing the action plan/road map on the fight against terrorism. The Council concluded that work would continue, notably regarding: EU/third country relations, non-proliferation, disarmament, arms exports and biological and chemical terrorism. The GAC stressed that implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 remained a priority. The GAC asked COREPER to examine a French proposal to create an international forum on the financing of terrorism.

  Western Balkans

  The GAC adopted conclusions which:

  (i) urged the Serbian and Montenegrin authorities to agree quickly on constitutional arrangements, by means of a democratic and construction dialogue, which would provide for a democratic Montenegro in a democratic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). The GAC asked The High Representative (HR) to visit Belgrade and Podgorica to reaffirm the EU's position, promote further dialogue and report back to the next GAC on 10 December. The Council affirmed that any referendum that resulted from the current process should be conducted democratically and in accordance with the Montenegrin Constitution;

  (ii) welcomed the peaceful and orderly legislative elections in Kosovo, which were an important step towards fully implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. The newly elected Kosovars should be encouraged to carry out their functions in strict compliance with the constitutional framework for provisional self-government. The GAC also called on them to co-operate fully with UNMIK and with the Belgrade authorities, in accordance with the joint document signed on 5 November 2001;

  (iii) welcomed the adoption of the constitutional provisions of the Macedonia Framework Agreement of 13 August and the announcement of the new constitution by the Macedonian Parliament on 15 November. It also urged all parties to apply the Framework Agreement in its entirety without delay and to observe the cease-fire. The EU was willing to play its full part in the context of the donors' meeting, once the conditions were met.

  (iv) agreed that EU would continue to play a leading role in the Stability Pact. The Pact's activities ought to be based on the principles of concentration/refocusing and regional appropriation. The GAC stressed the importance of enhancing the complementarity between the Pact and the Stabilisation and Association Process. The GAC emphasised that the impetus for regional co-operation must come from the region itself.

  1078W
  Africa: Great Lakes and Etritrea

  The GAC discussed the Ministerial troika mission to the Great Lakes Region to take place on 20–25 November. The GAC confirmed its support for the Lusaka process (concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)) and for the holding of the Congolese dialogue under the Lusaka Agreement. It also welcomed the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1376 and endorsed the requests made to States which had still begun to withdraw their forces from the DRC in accordance with Resolution 1304.

  The GAC also welcomed the donor information conference for the DRC to be held in Brussels on 20 December on the initiative of the World bank, further to the donor information conference held in Paris in July. It welcomed the meeting to be held in Brussels on 21 December, which would give impetus to the establishment of a regional trust fund for DDRRR (Disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration, resettlement and relocation).

  The GAC welcomed the swearing in of a transitional government in Burundi on 1 November (in line with the Arusha process). The Council expressed its deep concern about the recent upsurge of violence and strongly condemned the attacks on the health centres and the kidnapping of schoolchildren by armed groups. The GAC recalled that it had adopted a Joint Action and released EUR 9.5 million to support the deployment of a special protection unit, provisionally composed of a South African battalion, and called again on the international community to contribute to that unit's funding. The GAC welcomed the Commission's signing of the National Indicative Programme on EU aid for Burundi.

  The GAC welcomed the agreement between Presidents Museveni and Kagame of Rwanda and Uganda brokered by the United Kingdom, which aimed to reduce the sources of tension between the two countries and thus contribute to the region's stability. The Council also adopted an updated common position on Rwanda, further to that of September 2000. The Ministerial troika visit the region on 20–25 November would provide an opportunity to assess support in the States concerned for organising a Great Lakes Conference, under the aegis of the United Nations and African Union, once the Lusaka and Arusha peace processes had progressed sufficiently.

  The GAC expressed deep concern at the situation in Eritrea, in particular persistent infringements of opposition rights, curbs on press freedom and the lack of information on the prominent figures who had been detained. It regretted that no solution had yet been found to the problem of the expulsion of the Italian Ambassador to Asmara, who was the representative of the European Union. It also regretted that the Eritrean Head of State, Mr. Isayas Afewerki, had not received the European Union Heads of Mission. The GAC said that talks should take place rapidly, in line with the Cotonou Agreement. These should address the EU's concerns, and set a timetable for the organisation of free and fair elections. The GAC noted that the relevant Council Bodies were examining the possible practical implications for EU aid if the current situation were to continue.
  1079W
  Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs)

  The GAC agreed a new Decision on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Community for the period 2001–07. This will result in increased EU aid for the UK's overseas territories.

  Presidency meetings with EU institutions' Trade Unions

  The Presidency briefed on its recent meetings with the EU Trade Unions. The meetings had covered the issues the Unions wanted the GAC to take into consideration when it addressed the Commission's personnel policy reform programme next year.

  Voting Record

  No formal votes were taken on the points under discussion at the GAC.

  Espionage
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the imprisonment of 12 UK citizens in Greece on alleged espionage charges. [18388]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Twelve British and two Dutch nationals were arrested on 8 November in Kalamata airbase after allegedly taking photographs at the base. Such photography is illegal in Greece. The group were charged with espionage on 12 November. They appeared before an Investigating Magistrate on 27 November when further espionage charges were laid.

  Following the hearing on 27 November, the group was remanded in custody. They will now appear in front of a three strong panel of judges in Kalamata. We hope this will take place as quickly as possible. This hearing will not be a trial as such but is a review mechanism within the Greek justice system.

  The British plane spotters and their families were naturally disappointed that the case did not conclude on 27 November. So were we. We are talking to the Greek authorities to request that all avenues are pursued to ensure that the review takes place very quickly. Our objective remains to ensure proper conditions for the detainees and a speedy and transparent judicial process.

  Weapons
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries his Department has assessed as seeking to make(a) nuclear, (b) biological and (c) chemical weapons. [18260]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not Government policy to comment on specific intelligence matters or assessment.

  Iraq and Iran
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether(a) Iraq and (b) Iran have covertly produced biological weapons. [18268]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not Government policy to comment on specific intelligence assessments. However, with reference to Iraq, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 6W.
  1080W

  EU Treaties
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the areas under the third pillar of the EU treaties to which co-decision with the European Parliament(a) applies and (b) does not apply. [18440]

  Peter Hain
  The third pillar, or Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, contains provisions for co-operation between member states in the fields of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. There are no areas under the third pillar to which co-decision with the European Parliament applies. However, within Title VI, under Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the Council is required to consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure referred to in Article 34(2)(b), (c) and (d). These measures are:framework decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the member states;
  decisions for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of Title VI: and
  conventions which the Council shall recommend to member states for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

  Article 39(2) requires the Presidency and Commission regularly to inform the European Parliament of discussions in the areas covered by Title VI. Article 39(3) says that the European Parliament may ask questions of the Council or make recommendations to it, and that each year it shall hold a debate on progress made in the areas referred to in Title VI.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the Joint Entry Clearance Unit. [18735]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend has not yet visited the Joint Entry Clearance Unit, but he does plan to visit Departments of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he has not yet seen. As Minister responsible for entry clearance I visited the Joint Entry Clearance Unit on 12 June.

  Visa Cases
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2001,Official Report, column 45W, on visa cases, when it became the practice not to disclose details of individual visa cases in a public forum; and for what reason. [18628]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is a well-established general practice not to disclose the names of applicants or details of individual visa applications on confidentiality grounds. This practice is in accordance with Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and reflects the Government's obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. I refer my hon. Friend to his answer of 22 March 2001,Official Report, columns 316–17W.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many formal notices his Department has received in the last year from the
  1081W
  Parliamentary Ombudsman expressing an intention to carry out an investigation; and in respect of each notice how long it took to respond. [18763]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]:Information on the outcome of statutory investigations which were concluded during 2000–01 are set out in the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Annual Report for 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, or on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman. org uk/pca/document/para01/index/htm.

  Between 1 April 2001 and 31 October 2001, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office received 13 new statutory statements of complaint from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The FCO responded to them all; in 11 cases the FCO met the agreed deadline set by the Ombudsman's office; while in the other two, the deadline was missed by one day.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe; and what steps he will take to ensure(a) the conditions of the land reform deal negotiated at Abuja, Nigeria are honoured and (b) the criteria for Commonwealth membership are maintained. [18255]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 27 November 2001, Official Report, columns 815–18.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that Gibraltarians can vote in the 2004 elections to the European Parliament. [19998]

  Peter Hain
  We unequivocally accept the obligation to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Matthews v. UK and we are committed to extending the European franchise in time for the 2004 elections to the European Parliament. To this end, we will be seeking legislative time in order to bring in the necessary domestic legislation. We will, of course, consult the Government of Gibraltar on the legislative and practical details.

  Andorra
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has held with the joint sovereigns of Andorra in the last three years, with specific reference to the use of Andorra as a route for smuggling into the UK. [19133]

  Peter Hain
  The Secretary of State has not had any formal bilaterals with the French President and/or the Bishop of Urgell in the last three years. Officials have met regularly with Andorran parliamentarians and officials during the last three years to discuss issues of mutual interest.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport England (Athletics)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what targets her Department has set Sport England for the funding of athletics; and if she will make a statement; [17945]

  (2) what plans she has to direct Sport England to divert the resources earmarked for the 2005 World Athletics Championships to the development of grassroots athletics; and if she will make a statement. [17943]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK's offer to stage the World Athletics Championship in Sheffield in 2005 has not been accepted by the International Association of Athletic Federations. Sport England will therefore reallocate the lottery funds originally earmarked in principle for staging the Championships to other projects to benefit grassroots sport including athletics in particular.

  UK Athletics, Sport England and officials from my Department are co-operating to produce an agreed development plan for athletics which aims to increase the number of people involved in the sport as competitors, organisers, coaches and officials; to improve systems for identifying and developing talent; provide better facilities; and strengthen support for our top competitors. Details of the plan are under discussion and will be published in the near future.

  Tourism
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to bring the level of Government grant-in-aid to the English Tourist Council into line with that to the Scottish, Wales and Northern Ireland tourist boards. [18416]

  Dr. Howells
  Government aid to the Scottish Tourist Board, the Wales Tourist Board and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board per head of the population has always been much higher than that to the English Tourism Council (ETC) over the last decade. Each administration now makes its own decisions on funding that take into account local conditions and needs and the extent to which financial support is needed to address market failure in different parts of the country.

  Direct comparisons of Government grant do not, of course, provide the whole answer. In England, the local authorities also spend over £90 million each year promoting tourism. DCMS's £1 billion expenditure on arts, museums, galleries, sport etc. also directly benefits tourism. In addition, Government funding to English tourism is set to increase from £10 million in 2001–02 to £12 million in 2002–03 and £12.5 million in 2003–04. Visitor spending in England is higher, at £222 per head of the population, than that in Scotland (£160 per head) or Wales (£92 per head) and total spending by tourists in England has grown faster in recent years.

  Cunningham Review
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the recommendations of the Cunningham Review which have not been accepted by her Department. [18485]
  1083W
  Mr. Caborn
  The recommendations set out in the Elite Sports Funding Review are directed at both the Sports Councils and my Department. Implementation of many of the recommendations is already being progressed by the Sports Councils in co-operation with the national governing bodies of sport. The remaining recommendations are being carefully considered within the context of my Department's spending review.

  Lottery Funding
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how indoor sports facilities will be affected in the West Midlands by the New Opportunities for School and Community Sports Lottery funds. [18338]

  Mr. Caborn
  £61,274,000 has been provisionally allocated to local areas in the West Midlands and the large majority of this funding will be used to provide new or modernised sports facilities. The proportion of this funding used for indoor and outdoor facilities will be decided by local partnerships led by LEAs, as they develop bids that best meet local priorities and strategies.

  Derek Casey
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the redundancy payment to Derek Casey, former Chief Executive Officer of Sport England. [19084]

  Mr. Caborn
  Full details of the severance package for the former Chief Executive of Sport England will be disclosed in Sport England's accounts which will be laid before the House as soon as possible.

  International Association of Athletic Federations
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Ministers represented her Department at the IAAF Annual Award ceremony in Monte Carlo on 25 November. [19083]

  Mr. Caborn
  No Minister from this Department attended this event.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Press Notices
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the press notices issued by her predecessors on each day between 10 September and 10 October 2000 on subjects which are the responsibility of her Department. [8944]

  Mr. Morley
  During the period from 10 September to 10 October 2000, a total of 38 press releases were issued by the MAFF press office. I have also established that the environment and rural affairs press group issued 12 press releases for this period while part of DETR.

  The press releases are in the public domain and can be found on the following websites:

  www.defra.gov.uk

  www.dtlr.gov.uk

  www.home.office.gov.uk

  1084W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the press notices issued by her Department on each day between 10 September and 10 October. [8943]

  Mr. Morley
  During the period from 10 September to 10 October 2001, a total of 45 press releases were issued by the DEFRA press office.

  Please note that this included 33 press releases from activities formerly identified as MAFF related and 12 press releases from the recently merged environment press office, now part of the DEFRA press office.

  These press releases are in the public domain and can be found on the following websites:

  www.defra.gov.uk

  www.dtlr.gov.uk

  www.home.office.gov.uk

  Departmental Procurement
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's procurement policy and what plans there are for Departments to join together to(a) reduce procurement costs, (b) increase efficiency and (c) operate green procurement policies. [16744]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's procurement policy is that all public procurement of goods and services is to be based on value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity. Value for money is not the lowest price—it is defined as the optimum combination of whole life costs and quality to meet the user's requirement. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) was created to lead a wide-ranging programme to modernise procurement in central civil Government. DEFRA is supportive of and committed fully to working with the OGC in delivering this wide-ranging programme. One of the areas in which OGC is encouraging a joined-up approach is in the aggregation of requirements and wider use of existing agreements. This will make a significant contribution to(a) reducing procurement costs and (b) increased efficiency.

  With regard to (c) the joint HM Treasury/DETR (now DEFRA) note, on environmental issues in purchasing, explains how Departments can pursue their "green" strategies within the above procurement policy framework. In particular, it explains how environmental issues can be reflected in specifications.

  Bio-security
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans the Government have to improve national bio-security; how much money is allocated to target(a) airports and (b) containers arriving in ports in the current financial year; [16944]

  (2) what changes have been made to increase bio-security in the UK since 2000; [16945]

  (3) what action is planned by the Government to prevent the entry of potentially infected illegal meat into the United Kingdom. [16956]
  1085W
  Mr. Morley
  All consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK from other EU member states must have been produced in accordance with the harmonised Community rules laid down in Council directive 64/433/EEC. Imports from third countries must have been produced to standards at least equivalent to those in the directive. Among other things, this directive sets out the licensing, structural and veterinary supervision requirements to be applied in abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores.

  All meat imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK border inspection posts (BIPs) where it is subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks. These ensure import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition during transport. In line with Community rules, random spot checks at destination may be carried out on consignments of fresh meat imported into the UK from other EU member states.

  New arrangements have been introduced across all enforcement agencies involved to improve the sharing and analysis of information about known or suspected illegal imports. We are building up a database of details which is enabling us to target enforcement action and to make best use of available resources. Our national regulations have also been amended to assist local authorities in seizing suspected illegal imports when they are found at point of sale. The Food Standards Agency is also encouraging local authorities to ensure that checking for illegal imports is part of their routine inspection of food premises.

  Alongside this we have introduced improved publicity to ensure that travellers are aware of the restrictions on what may be imported. Posters have been placed at main airports and we have asked UK travel agents and airlines using UK airports to make information about import controls available to travellers. Recognising that it is most effective to inform travellers before they leave for their journey to the UK, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been active via British embassies abroad, providing information directly to travellers and via travel agents and local media.

  We are keeping these measures under review and will make improvements as necessary. In addition, we are looking at a wide range of other options to ensure the rules on imports are enforced effectively and efficiently. These include, for example, the possible use of sniffer dogs and x-ray machines at ports and airports and changes to administrative structures.

  Apart from a small number of ports that import only animal products not intended for human consumption where import controls are operated by the state veterinary service, local authorities are responsible for controls at ports in their areas and the financial information requested is not held centrally.

  We are taking every opportunity to drive home the importance of observing high standards of bio-security on and around farms. We have used interviews in the national and local media and placed advertisements in the local and farming press. We have produced a video demonstrating a practical approach to bio-security. This has been made available to all livestock farmers and
  1086W
  others in the industry, accompanied by a leaflet and letter from Jim Scudamore, the chief veterinary officer. Special bio-security arrangements have been applied within restricted infected areas and subject to stringent enforcement.

  In the Animal Health Bill currently before Parliament, we are emphasising the importance of bio-security by linking the payment of compensation on infected premises to compliance with disease control measures. In addition, recommendations on future national bio-security measures may emerge from the independent inquiries into foot and mouth established by the Government.

  Growth Promoters
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the growth promoters that are permitted to be given to(a) pigs, (b) poultry and (c) other farm animals. [17413]

  Mr. Morley
  The following growth promoters are authorised under directive 70/524/EEC to be used as feed additives for pigs, poultry and other farm animals:

  (a) Pigs

  (i) Flavophospholipol

  (ii) Salinomycin sodium

  (iii) Avilamycin

  (b) Poultry

  Laying hens, turkeys, other poultry excluding ducks, geese, pigeons—Flavophospholipol

  Chickens for fattening, turkeys—Avilamycin

  (c) Other farm animals

  Calves, rabbits, cattle for fattening—Flavophospholipol

  Animals bred for fur, excluding rabbits—Flavophospholipol

  Cattle for fattening—Monensin Sodium.

  Spanish Fishermen (Compensation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason and how much EU compensation is being paid in this financial year to Spanish fishermen for loss of fishing opportunities in Morocco; what the UK contribution is to this compensation; and what EU compensation is to be paid to British fishermen for loss of fishing opportunities under Cod Preservation plans. [17306]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Council, at its meeting in Nice in December 2000, asked the Commission if it did not prove possible to conclude a future fisheries agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco to propose, keeping within the financial perspective, a specific action programme for restructuring the Community fleet which had fished within the framework of the old agreement.

  Now that negotiations between the EU and Morocco on a new agreement have failed, the proposal before the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 27 November would provide 197 million euros of new Community money, over two years, towards the restructuring of the fleets concerned, which are Spanish and Portuguese. We have made sure in negotiating that the terms of the measures are aimed at achieving real restructuring which avoids diversion of effort to Community waters.

  This measure will not increase the UK's contribution to the EU budget.
  1087W
  No EU compensation has been paid to British fishermen as a result of recovery measures to protect cod stocks. I would find it difficult in principle to justify making compensation payments for a decline in stocks, particularly when the cause of the problem could relate to overfishing, or for conservation measures put in place to improve stocks and fishing opportunities in the future.

  However, in order to promote the restructuring of the UK fleet, decommissioning schemes totalling £36 million are currently in place in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Sheep Brains (Testing)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the level of testing of sheep brains for BSE and scrapie; and when she expects to publish the results of the next round of testing. [18209]

  Mr. Morley
  Between November 2000 and the end of September 2001, 465 sheep scrapie suspects have been tested at the VLA. 284 were found to be positive for scrapie; none have given results indicative of BSE. The Department is also strain-typing, using mouse bioassay, brains from scrapie-infected sheep collected since 1996. In about 180 cases, experiments have reached the first point at which, if BSE was clearly present, it might have become apparent. It has not done so, although the work is still on-going and experiments cannot therefore be interpreted as excluding the presence of BSE. It is likely to require several more years before the strains can be definitively identified. The outcome of all investigations, whether research or surveillance, are kept under continual review, and guidance sought from SEAC where necessary. We will continue to put all our research into the public domain at the earliest opportunity.

  In the new year, the Department will be launching an abattoir survey and a fallen stock survey to test for TSEs, including scrapie, some 23,000 sheep aged over 18 months. This is part of an EU-wide programme designed to give information on the incidence of scrapie and other TSEs in the European Union. Quantitative data in terms of numbers of animals tested, and number positive, will be reported regularly to the European Commission in accordance with our statutory obligations. This information will also be put in the public domain. Qualitative analysis, whether in terms of the prevalence of scrapie infection in the population sampled, or the nature of any scrapie identified, will under normal circumstances require completion of the survey, and possible further investigations.

  Sheep/Lamb Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement for the forecast level of the ewe premium for 2001; [18207]

  (2) what assessment she has made of (a) the future of the European Union's sheepmeat regime and (b) the prospects for the United Kingdom's sheep and lamb industry; and if she will make a statement on the Council of Ministers meeting on 20 November. [18204]

  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission has made forecasts of the final rate of the ewe premium during the course of the year to enable advances of the premium to 1088W
  be paid; its most recent forecast is for a final rate of 10.779 euros. However, the final rate of the premium will not finally be determined until the average community market price for sheepmeat for the marketing year is known.

  The European Commission has proposed a number of changes to the sheepmeat regime. These include replacement of the current deficiency-type premium calculation with a fixed rate premium of 21 euro with effect from 2002. The proposals were considered by the Agriculture Council on 20 November and I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 26 November 2001, Official Report, column 690W.

  Foot and Mouth
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will grant a right for farmers to appeal against the slaughter of stock thought to be infected with foot and mouth before they are killed. [18065]

  Mr. Morley
  If a farmer does not agree with the decision to cull his stock, he has the right to make representations to the district veterinary manager.

  This right is not affected by the Animal Health Bill currently before Parliament.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to make insurance against outbreaks of foot and mouth disease compulsory for livestock farmers. [19247]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is continuing to study the options for insurance against the consequences of outbreaks of livestock diseases.

  Late Payments
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the industrial action by her Department's civil servants has led to a backlog in processing(a) IACS payments and (b) compensation payments; and if the Government will pay interest to farmers affected by late payments. [18295]

  Mr. Morley
  Industrial action by PCS members has affected the Department's ability to process payments as normal, although every effort continues to be made to make payments within the appropriate time scales. It is not Government policy to pay compensation for payments which might miss payment deadlines because of industrial action.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations she has received with regard to the level of sheep annual premium for the forthcoming year; [18084]

  (2) when she expects to announce the level of sheep annual premium for the forthcoming year. [18085]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: We have received a number of representations on the European Commission's proposal to replace the current deficiency-type premium calculation with a flat rate

  1089W
  premium of 21 euro with effect from 2002. Under the Commission's proposals, member states would he able to pay the flat rate from 16 October 2002.

  The proposals were considered by the Agriculture Council on 20 November. No agreement was reached at that meeting and we expect that discussions will resume in the Council in December.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many formal notices her Department has received in the last year from the parliamentary ombudsman expressing an intention to carry out an investigation; and in respect of each notice how long it took to respond. [18765]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: Information on the outcome of statutory investigations which were concluded during 2000–01 are set out in the parliamentary ombudsman's annual report for 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, or on the parliamentary ombudsman's website at
  www.ombudsman.org.uk/pca/document/par01/index.htm

  Between 8 June 2001 (the date on which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was set up) and 31 October 2001, the Department received one new statutory statement of complaint from the parliamentary ombudsman. The time taken to respond was 28 days.

  Rural Affairs
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was spent on(a) the England rural development programme, (b) the farm business advisory service and (c) other services for farmers in 2001–02. [18836]

  Alun Michael
  (a) Expenditure on the England rural development programme from 16 October 2000 to 15 October 2001 (the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund financial year) amounted to £125,931,200.00 The figure excludes state aid and modulation.

  (b) DEFRA is invoiced quarterly in arrears by the small business service for delivery of the farm business advice service. The amount invoiced at the end of September for work carried out in this financial year was £1.3 million. This figure was lower than anticipated due to the temporary suspension of the service and restricted access to farms as a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. Current forecast expenditure for the whole of 2001–02, based on business link service delivery predictions, is £11.55 million.

  (c) Figures on expenditure on other services to farmers in 2001–02 are not held centrally due to the number and variety of sources of assistance available.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farm businesses received regional development agency support in 2001–02, stating in each case the level of funding made available. [18681]
  1090W
  Alun Michael
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) people have been helped by the England rural development programme by category and (b) farmers have received free consultancy advice from the farm business advisory service. [18785]

  Alun Michael
  (a) 3,924 new land based agreements were signed under the England rural development programme (ERDP) for the scheme year 2000–01. Of these, 2,572 were agri-environment scheme agreements, and 1,352 related to afforestation and other forestry measures. Around 10,500 claims for support were paid in 2001 to upland farmers under the hill farm allowance, which is also part of the ERDP.

  Three new rural economy schemes were introduced in October 2000 under the ERDP: the rural enterprise scheme (RES), the processing and marketing grant (PMG) and the vocational training scheme (VTS). These schemes operate on a competitive basis and are designed to support rural enterprises and rural services. Up to the end of October 2001, 136 RES projects had been approved at a total grant value of some £8 million. Over the same period, 20 PMG projects and 72 VTS projects were approved, representing a further £5 million and £2 million respectively of grant expenditure.

  Foot and mouth disease had a marked effect on delivery of the ERDP, but a number of initiatives intended to minimise the impact have been or are being pursued, including extended application windows for the land based schemes.

  (b) Over the year since the farm business advice service was launched in October 2000 until the end of September 2001, 7,613 farms requested the service, 4,637 farms received an initial diagnostic visit and 2,851 farms received the full three-day service resulting in an action plan.

  Farmers throughout England directly affected by the foot and mouth outbreak were invited to apply for the enhanced five-day service at the end of August 2001. By the end of September, 1,146 farmers had registered for the enhanced service and 319 had received an initial visit.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the extent to which delivery has been achieved on(a) provision of new service standards, (b) additional sure start schemes and (c) increasing police visibility and accessibility in rural areas. [18787]

  Alun Michael
  (a) The rural services standard set out in the rural White Paper brings together standards and targets from a range of rural services. It is our intention to review and update this standard annually starting in 2002.

  (b) Sure start aims to support young children and their families living in disadvantaged areas so that they have improved life chances. To date the Government have announced 437 out of the 500 sure start programmes planned to be operational by April 2004. In addition to the 500 full-scale sure start programmes, £22 million has been allocated to establish 50 small sure start programmes to reach pockets of deprivation, particularly those in rural areas. The third round of pilot projects began in seven

  1091W
  rural districts at the end of July, and it is expected that the fourth round of pilots, which will involve a further six rural districts, will commence at the end of November.

  (c) Police authorities were required to report in annual policing performance plans how they spent the extra £15 million (2000–01) and how they intended to spend the additional £30 million (2001–02) on improving policing services in rural areas. In addition chief constables are required to outline in their annual report what measures have been taken to improve visibility and accessibility in each ward and parish in their force area. These publications can be found on individual police force websites.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) funds available in the Countryside Agency grant scheme for village services launched in April and (b) proportion spent through the scheme in 2000–01. [18790]

  Alun Michael
  The funds allocated to each of the schemes in the Countryside Agency's vital village programme are:

  £ million

  Parish Plans

  15

  Community Service Grant

  115

  Parish Transport Grant

  115

  1 Over three years

  The vital villages programme only started in 2001–02 so expenditure was zero in 2000–01.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 27 November; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [19644]

  Mr. Morley
  I represented the UK at the Fisheries Council on 27 November.

  The Council discussed the Commission's proposal to extend the multi-annual guidance programme (MAGP IV) for one year until the end of 2002, and will return to the subject at its next meeting.

  The Council reached political agreement on rules for the restructuring of the Spanish and Portuguese fleets which used to fish in Moroccan waters. Many of the vessels in these fleets have been tied up in port since December 1999, when the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement expired. The rules govern the use of the 197 million euros which have been allocated to fund, during 2002 and 2003, the destruction of vessels, conversion to non-fishing uses, export of vessels to third countries and conversion of vessels to other fishing methods. The UK and a number of other member states made it clear that they expect Spain and Portugal to ensure that vessels modernised with EU money under the measure will not fish in EU waters.

  There was a qualified majority in the Council in favour of a decision applying provisionally the renewed EU-Mauritania fisheries agreement, whose predecessor expired on 31 July 2001. The agreement provides for
  1092W
  fishing opportunities in Mauritanian waters over five years at a cost of 86 million euros per year. Along with a number of other member states the UK, in supporting the proposal, made clear that we consider there is substantial room for improvement in the way that such agreements are negotiated and monitored: I stressed in particular the need to make sure that they provide value for money, promote environmentally sustainable fishing and are coherent with Community development policy. I made it clear that we are looking for a thorough debate, within the framework of the forthcoming review of the common fisheries policy, on the handling of such agreements.

  The Council noted the Commission's report on the monitoring of implementation of the CFP and the Commission's communication on serious infringements of the CFP rules during 2000. The Commission urged greater consistency among member states on matters such as the size of penalties.

  The Council also noted the difficulties being experienced by the Commission in reaching agreement in the Community's negotiations with Norway, Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland and Russia about fixing and allocating the total allowable catch for blue whiting in 2002. There was agreement that the Community should continue to argue for a responsible approach to exploiting this pressurised stock.

  The Council was given an indication by the Commissioner of how he intends to launch his proposals for reforming the common fisheries policy. He intends to bring this forward in the form of a number of separate legislative proposals in the course of 2002. He intends to start by launching a "road map" of the Commission's plans in the new year, once the European Parliament has delivered its opinion on the Commission's Green Paper on the CFP review. The Commission then envisages that there might be an orientation debate at the Council in April, with subsequent Councils considering different elements of the legislative proposals.

  The Commission and the Presidency both urged member states which had not yet completed their national procedures for ratifying the UN Straddling Stocks agreement to do so as soon as possible. This is required so that the EU can ratify the agreement which will now be entering into force in December.

  Cattle Auctions
  Jim Knight
  to ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when auction markets for cattle will be restored in(a) Dorset and (b) areas that have been spared infection by foot and mouth disease. [16308]

  Mr. Morley
  A decision to reopen auction markets in Dorset or elsewhere in England and Wales will be made in the light of scientific and veterinary advice on progress with the eradication of FMD. It is not possible to state a precise time but it is expected to be in the early part of 2002, provided there are no further outbreaks.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list for
  1093W
  each of the last 10 financial years the Government's annual expenditure on flood prevention and flood defences. [16633]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood defence is provided by the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. The great majority of their expenditure is provided by Government in the form of DEFRA grant (which is used by local authorities to fund levies to the Environment Agency, special levies to internal drainage boards and to finance their own spend on flood and coastal defence). The following table sets out total Government funding of flood and coastal defence for the last 10 years:

  £ million

  1991–92

  269.6

  1992–93

  279.7

  1993–94

  277.0

  1994–95

  274.0

  1995–96

  272.3

  1996–97

  309.7

  1997–98

  312.4

  1998–99

  315.9

  1999–2000

  326.3

  2000–01

  1328.5

  1 Information updated since response to the answer given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on 9 November 2001, Official Report, column 451W.

  Total expenditure is budgeted to increase to some £377 million in the current financial year and forecast to increase further to £393 million in 2002–03 and £414 million in 2003–04.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to announce the results of her review into the financial and institutional arrangements governing flood defence matters; and if she will make a statement. [19088]

  Mr. Morley
  The conclusions of the review of flood and coastal defence funding arrangements will be published soon and will coincide with the initiation of a public consultation on recommendations in the report.

  Countryside Visits
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 425W, on countryside visits, how many people visited the countryside in (a) 1996 and (b) 1998. [18834]

  Alun Michael
  The United Kingdom leisure day visits survey shows that in 1996 there were 1,302 million day visits and in 1998 there were 1,253 million day visits to the countryside. Figures are not available for the number of different people who visited the countryside.

  Ash Moor, Petrockstowe
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what microbiological studies have been carried out in relation to Ash Moor Petrockstowe; and if she will place the studies in the Library. [19136]
  1094W
  Mr. Morley
  There is no requirement to include microbiological studies within an environmental impact assessment and none were carried out at Ash Moor.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the grid references are of the site on which a geological survey was carried out in relation to Ash Moor Petrockstowe and if she will place the survey in the Library. [19138]

  Mr. Morley
  The draft environmental impact assessment on the Ash Moor mass burial site includes the appropriate information on the hydrology, geology and hydrogeology of the site. The information will be included in the final published text.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental impact assessment in relation to Ash Moor Petrockstowe; and if she will revoke the decision to allow the site to be brought into use for the disposal of animal carcases. [19135]

  Mr. Morley
  The draft environmental impact assessment on the Ash Moor mass burial site is currently the subject of consultation with interested bodies. The final text will be published in the usual way. There are no current plans to use the Ash Moor site for the disposal of animal carcases.

  Market Towns
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the level of funds available for the regeneration programme for the next three years, (b) the number of market towns that have received support in 2001–02 and (c) the number of market towns, as defined by the Government. [18786]

  Alun Michael
  From next April regional development agencies will make their forward spending plans within single budgets covering all their activities, rather than in several separate programme budgets. Rural regeneration budgets will no longer be separately identified within regional development agency total budgets. However regional development agencies must identify key planned rural outputs, and will in due course be able to report in arrears on actual expenditure in rural areas.

  Rate Relief (Village Businesses)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce legislative proposals to extend the mandatory rate relief scheme for village shops to(a) small food shops, (b) pubs and (c) petrol filling stations. [18789]

  Alun Michael
  The village shop rate relief scheme was extended to include pubs and petrol stations in April 2001. Under the scheme, the sole village pub or petrol station with a rateable value of £9,000 or less in a qualifying settlement, is eligible to receive 50 per cent. rate relief from central Government. Local authorities have the power to top the relief up to 100 per cent.

  In August, a rate relief scheme for farm diversification and village food shops was introduced. Under the scheme, mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief will be provided to all food shops with a rateable value below £6,000 in designated villages of less than 3,000 population.

  1095W
  Councils still have the discretion to give up to 100 per cent. relief to any business in a settlement which is eligible for the rate relief scheme with a rateable value below £12,000.

  Town and Parish Councils
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which town and parish councils have received financial assistance for(a) training and (b) preparation of local plans in 2001–02, stating in each case the level of funding made available. [18791]

  Alun Michael
  (a) The Countryside Agency, in consultation with the National Association of Local Councils, is still in the process of working up a national training strategy for town and parish councils. No parish or town council has therefore received funding for training from the Countryside Agency.

  (b) The parish plans grant scheme was launched in April this year. The target is to have 1,000 communities producing town or parish plans by 2004.

  The maximum level of grant available is £5,000 to cover 75 per cent. of the costs of producing the plan. To date, 243 parish and town councils have registered an interest to produce a plan and 72 have been made a formal offer of grant. Grant is paid out against actual expenditure but applicants can claim an "up front payment" of 25 per cent. of their grant application to help them get started.

  Food and Farming Policy
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the Policy Commission on Food and Farming to report. [20224]

  Margaret Beckett
  The independent Policy Commission was tasked in the summer with reporting to the Government by the end of this year. The commission is making good progress and will complete the bulk of its work in that timetable, but it will now deliver its final report by the end of January 2002.

  Sheep Brain Experiment
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the reports of audits she has commissioned into the sheep brain pool experiment at the Institute for Animal Health. [20225]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have now received the reports of the two independent auditors, the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) and Risk Solutions. I intend to publish them, along with a response from the Institute for Animal Health to the issues raised in the audits, at 9.30 am tomorrow (30 November) and will make the documents available to hon. Members through the Vote Office and Libraries.

  National Forest (East Midlands)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will report on the National Forest Company's progress in creating the National Forest in the east midlands. [19997]
  1096W
  Mr. Morley
  I have arranged for copies of the National Forest Company's annual report and its accounts for 2000–01 to be placed in the House Libraries.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the increase in the use of recycled aggregate as a consequence of the introduction of the aggregates levy. [17925]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The increase in the use of recycled aggregates as a consequence of the introduction of the aggregates levy cannot be predicted with certainty. The size of any change will depend on how the producers and consumers of aggregate respond to the levy and to consequent changes in prices, in both the short and longer term. The regulatory impact assessment prepared in 2000 to accompany the proposal for the levy noted that, using the short run elasticities produced by ECOTEC for the Quarry Products Association in 1998, a best estimate of the impact of a £1.60 levy on the demand for primary aggregates would be a reduction of around 10 per cent. of production or, currently, about 24 million tonnes per year. Alternative materials, including recycled aggregate, would replace some of this reduced production, and less aggregate would be required as a result of increased efficiency and a reduction in waste of all aggregates in construction and manufacturing processes. At any level of production, the levy should encourage a shift away from virgin aggregate towards alternative materials such as recycled aggregate.

  Salmon Farming
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of salmon farming on the environment; and if she will make a statement. [13869]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for this matter rests with the Scottish Executive. I understand however that the key issues of concern have been identified and a range of actions designed to tackle them have been embarked upon.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many references there have been to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 since 1972. [18302]

  The Solicitor-General
  By virtue of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, the Attorney-General may seek the opinion of the Court of Appeal on a point of law arising out of any trial on indictment where there has been an acquittal. Since 1972, there have been at least
  1097W
  56 Attorney-General's references where the Court of Appeal has given its opinion on a point of law. The figures for the last few years are as shown.

  1998: 2

  1999: 2

  2000: 5

  2001: 2.

HEALTH

  Health Care Rationing
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the extent of health care rationing. [11093]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients continue to be assessed on the basis of clinical need, and it has been repeatedly made clear that those patients in clearest need will be treated as a matter of priority, regardless of any other factors. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Committee for Health Improvement have been set up to ensure a faster more uniform uptake of treatments which work for the patient. In addition to this the NHS Plan sets out a commitment that by 2003, following a review of the existing weighted capitation formula used to distribute national health service funding, reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources to different parts of the country.

  Disaster Planning (Wyre Forest)
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans have been made for the reception of casualties if a major disaster occurs in Wyre Forest. [11188]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are determined to ensure that the national health service is in as strong a position as possible to handle major incidents and we have recently asked senior NHS doctors and managers to review their arrangements for major incidents.

  In line with Government guidance, Worcestershire has a comprehensive major incident plan in place for a range of possible scenarios. The plan has been developed in collaboration with health services across Worcestershire and involving all the emergency services and the local authority emergency planning departments.

  Past experiences of major disasters in this country and abroad suggest that hospitals and minor injury centres both within Worcestershire and outside the district could be deployed depending on the scale of the disaster and the nature of injuries sustained. The Government's recent guidance to health authorities on major incident planning procedures is designed to heighten awareness as a precautionary measure and forms part of the Department's on-going work on medical countermeasures for biological incidents.

  Major Trauma Casualties (Worcestershire)
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many major trauma casualties could be received and treated simultaneously at hospitals in Worcestershire and neighbouring areas. [11189]

  Mr. Hutton
  The ability of hospitals to respond to major trauma is dependent on a number of factors. Within each hospital the ability to receive such casualties will depend on the number of resuscitation bays and intensive care units (ICU) beds available.

  Only hospitals that have adequate facilities such as resuscitation, theatres, ITU and clinical expertise should receive major trauma. Currently in Worcestershire there are:
  spaces for up to 12 patients and two resuscitation bays at the Alexandra Hospital,
  spaces for up to seven patients and three resuscitation bays at Worcester Royal Infirmary.

  There is the potential for spaces for up to 20 patients and four resuscitation bays in the new hospital in Worcester, due to open in April next year.

  Worcestershire's major incident plan has escalation procedures to involve other sectors of the health and social services locally, and in surrounding areas. The Hereford and Worcestershire Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust would work in collaboration with local and surrounding acute hospitals and neighbouring ambulance trusts to ensure that patients are taken to the nearest appropriate facility.

  Nurses
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) registered and (b) formerly registered nurses have taken up a full or part-time contract with the NHS after a break in their nursing career in each of the last three years for which records are available. [16398]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors who have returned to practice in the national health service

  Year or part year

  Part time

  Full time

  1 February 1999 to 31 January 2000

  1,636

  1,156

  1 February 2000 to 31 January 2001

  2,579

  1,518

  1 February 2001 to 31 October 2001

  1,496

  1,286

  Note:

  Data collected by the Department do not identify whether returning nurses are registered or formerly registered.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of registered and formerly registered nurses who are not employed as nurses and who are(a) under 30, (b) under 40, (c) under 50 and (d) under 60 years of age. [16388]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data covering the number of registered and formerly registered nurses are collected by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC).

  The table is the Department's analysis of the data supplied.
  1099W

  Nurses in England not working in the national health service

  England—September 2000

  Less than 30

  30 to less than 40

  40 to less than 50

  50 to less than 60

  Not known

  Total

  Nurses in England with effective registration who are not working in the NHS

  29,020

  48,240

  47,990

  35,290

  30

  160,580

  Nurses previously registered in England who have let their UKCC registration lapse

  2,720

  29,790

  36,680

  35,950

  1,490

  106,630

  Notes:

  1. Individual records have been matched to health authorities and regions in England by postcode. Where postcode data are inaccurate or missing records have been matched by town/city.

  2. Nurses have to register with the UKCC every three years to stay on the UKCC register.

  3. Figures relate to the area of practice at the time of registration.

  4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  UKCC databases analysed by the Department of Health

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contribution his Department will make to the World Health Organisation study into deep vein thrombosis and air travel. [16319]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department, in conjunction with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is planning to make a contribution to the World Health Organisation study in terms of financial support and the provision of advice, the details of which are under consideration.

  Palliative Care
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the money assigned to palliative care over three years has been spent; and if he will make a statement on how it was spent. [16353]

  Jacqui Smith
  By 2004 the national health service will be investing an additional £50 million which will match, on a national basis, the investment made by the voluntary sector. We will be monitoring the information from financial frameworks and cancer network service delivery plans to ensure that this investment is happening.

  Plasmapheresis
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is in the NHS for the treatment of severe sensitivity to light by plasmapheresis. [17144]

  Mr. Hutton
  Facilities for plasmapheresis are available in many large national health service haematology or immunology departments. We are not aware, however, of any photosensitive eruption for which it is routine treatment and for which the NHS would provide facilities.

  Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average cost per patient of prescribing atypical antipsychotic drugs. [17222]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: Information on the number of patients prescribed atypical antipsychotic drugs is not available.

  The average net ingredient cost per prescription item for atypical antipsychotic drugs dispensed in the community in England in 2000 was £70.06.
  1100W
  The Department has asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic drugs.

  Operations
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of operations carried out under the NHS were performed in the private sector in the last 12 months. [19381]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  The Department has recently surveyed health authorities and trusts on the amount of activity they are purchasing for national health service patients within the private sector and will publish key results in due course. The Department is also currently reviewing its information needs as far as NHS-funded activity in the private sector is concerned.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria will be used to allocate funding to primary care trusts. [19197]

  Mr. Hutton
  We currently allocate funding to health authorities, and they allocate funding to primary care trusts, on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each health authority and primary care trust's fair share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of services for populations in equal need.

  In future the intention is that allocations will be made direct to primary care trusts. This is subject to the passage of legislation through Parliament. Allocations will continue to be based on the principle of weighted capitation.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for(a) in-patient treatment and (b) out-patient appointments in each quarter of (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001 for (a) less than six months, (b) between six and 12 months, (c) between 12 and 18 months and (d) over 18 months. [19196]
  1101W
  Mr. Hutton
  The number of inpatients waiting less than six months; between six and 12 months; between 12 and 18 months; and over 18 months in each quarter of 2000 and 2001 are given in the table.

  More than half of the patients waiting over 18 months at end September 2001 are awaiting single use instruments for tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. This is because the National Health Service has been advised only to carry out these procedures (when routine) using single-use supply instruments due to the theoretical risk of contracting vCJD. A sufficient supply of these instruments is now available, therefore we expect that the number of patients waiting for tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy procedures on the list will start to reduce and we will be able to ensure treatment of actual and potential over 18 month waiters in the coming months.

  Inpatient data (trust based)

  Number of patients waiting

  Quarter ending

  Less than 6 months

  6–12 months

  12–18 months

  More than 18 months

  March 2000

  768,791

  219,229

  49,039

  7

  June 2000

  774,867

  221,642

  61,380

  1

  September 2000

  756,620

  224,089

  51,113

  2

  December 2000

  767,254

  217,912

  49,205

  10

  March 2001

  760,736

  203,833

  41,941

  217

  June 2001

  770,715

  220,471

  46,333

  356

  September 2001

  757,846

  232,786

  44,462

  208

  Source:

  Department of Health—KHO7 quarterly return

  Data are not collected on the number of outpatients waiting in the time frames requested. However, data are collected on the number of outpatients waiting between three months and six months; and over six months. These data have been given in the table.

  Of which:

  Name

  Total in-patient waiting list (September 2001)

  Ordinary patients

  Daycase patients

  In-patient waiting list profile for September 2001

  Difference to September 2001 profile

  Percentage difference to September 2001 profile

  Waiting list plan for March 2002

  Hillingdon HA

  4,167

  2,341

  1,826

  4,001

  166

  4.1

  4,059

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  4,477

  2,552

  1,925

  4,456

  21

  0.5

  4,504

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  10,349

  5,019

  5,330

  10,542

  -193

  -1.8

  11,197

  Bedfordshire HA

  10,304

  4,744

  5,560

  10,411

  -107

  -1.0

  9,818

  Berkshire HA

  14,495

  6,962

  7,533

  14,568

  -73

  -0.5

  14,008

  Buckinghamshire HA

  13,221

  6,857

  6,364

  12,960

  261

  2.0

  12,928

  Croydon HA

  6,561

  3,189

  3,372

  6,848

  -287

  -4.2

  6,630

  East Kent HA

  16,414

  7,750

  8,664

  16,278

  136

  0.8

  15,625

  West Kent HA

  24,236

  10,311

  13,925

  22,827

  1,409

  6.2

  23,748

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  7,122

  2,490

  4,632

  7,233

  -111

  -1.5

  6,999

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  15,914

  8,290

  7,624

  15,964

  -50

  -0.3

  16,274

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  10,084

  4,753

  5,331

  9,878

  206

  2.1

  9,977

  East Surrey HA

  8,527

  4,449

  4,078

  8,768

  -241

  -2.7

  8,900

  West Surrey HA

  14,644

  6,383

  8,261

  14,339

  305

  2.1

  14,550

  East Sussex Brighton and Hove HA

  17,893

  10,053

  7,840

  17,028

  865

  5.1

  17,260

  West Sussex HA

  18,714

  9,705

  9,009

  18,640

  74

  0.4

  18,554

  Barking and Havering HA

  10,804

  5,371

  5,433

  9,929

  875

  8.8

  10,078

  Brent and Harrow HA

  8,244

  4,625

  3,619

  8,309

  -65

  -0.8

  8,550

  Camden and Islington HA

  6,083

  3,671

  2,412

  5,662

  421

  7.4

  5,418

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  13,734

  6,801

  6,933

  13,178

  556

  4.2

  13,188

  East London and City HA

  11,388

  6,549

  4,839

  11,514

  -126

  -1.1

  11,590

  North Essex HA

  20,872

  10,095

  10,777

  20,925

  -53

  -0.3

  22,027

  South Essex HA

  17,408

  7,165

  10,243

  16,522

  886

  5.4

  16,908

  South Lancashire HA

  7,936

  3,485

  4,451

  8,355

  -419

  -5.0

  8,540

  Liverpool HA

  10,596

  5,304

  5,292

  11,132

  -536

  -4.8

  11,084

  Manchester HA

  12,189

  5,674

  6,515

  11,016

  1,173

  10.6

  11,325

  Morecambe Bay HA

  6,789

  2,747

  4,042

  6,177

  612

  9.9

  6,123

  1102W

  Outpatient data (trust based) Number of patients still waiting for a first outpatient appointment following GP referral who have waited over 13 and over 26 weeks

  Number still waiting

  Quarter ending

  13–25 weeks

  Over 26 weeks

  March 2000

  269,385

  132,223

  June 2000

  314,157

  130,335

  September 2000

  309,928

  125,840

  December 2000

  285,519

  113,618

  March 2001

  201,981

  81,847

  June 2001

  274,421

  85,099

  September 2001

  307,248

  92,821

  Source:

  Department of Health—QMO8 quarterly return

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) each health authority and (b) in total, (i) the authority-wide resident-based (A) in-patient and (B) daycase waiting list target for March 2002, (ii) the authority-wide profiled target for such cases for October 2001, (iii) the number of patients waiting for (1) in-patient and (2) daycase treatment in October 2001, (iv) the difference between (i) and (iii) and (v) the difference between (ii) and (iv). [19320]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest information is given in the table. Data for October 2001 are not available until 7 December; therefore September 2001 data have been provided instead. There is a single profile for in-patients covering daycases and ordinary admissions.

  Profiles are a management tool to ensure maintenance of the manifesto commitment. They are used to review progress, and to inform discussion between the Department and health authorities. The manifesto commitment was achieved in March 2000 and has been maintained since.
  1103W 1104W

  Of which:

  Name

  Total in-patient waiting list (September 2001)

  Ordinary patients

  Daycase patients

  In-patient waiting list profile for September 2001

  Difference to September 2001 profile

  Percentage difference to September 2001 profile

  Waiting list plan for March 2002

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  9,514

  4,590

  4,924

  8,794

  720

  8.2

  8,627

  Salford and Trafford HA

  12,828

  4,965

  7,863

  11,401

  1,427

  12.5

  11,233

  Sefton HA

  7,430

  3,420

  4,010

  7,297

  133

  1.8

  7,251

  Stockport HA

  7,249

  3,754

  3,495

  6,740

  509

  7.6

  6,632

  West Pennine HA

  11,663

  4,678

  6,985

  12,051

  -388

  -3.2

  12,03

  Northamptonshire HA

  13,728

  6,508

  7,220

  13,255

  473

  3.6

  13,196

  Oxfordshire HA

  10,942

  6,034

  4,908

  10,053

  889

  8.8

  10,173

  Suffolk HA

  15.255

  7,703

  7,552

  14,363

  892

  6.2

  14,999

  Barnsley HA

  4,243

  2,092

  2,151

  4,953

  -710

  -14.3

  4,435

  North Derbyshire HA

  8,202

  3,529

  4,673

  8,735

  -533

  -6.1

  8,600

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  12,470

  5,099

  7,371

  12,824

  -354

  -2.8

  12,800

  Doncaster HA

  4,111

  1,964

  2,147

  4,331

  -220

  -5.1

  4,120

  Leicestershire HA

  16,056

  8,355

  7,701

  16,556

  -500

  -3.0

  16,100

  Lincolnshire HA

  15,717

  7,370

  8,347

  16,195

  -478

  -3.0

  16,600

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  7,976

  4,131

  3,845

  7,847

  129

  1.6

  8,000

  Nottingham HA

  11,365

  6,106

  5,259

  11,328

  37

  0.3

  11,615

  Rotherham HA

  3,819

  2,019

  1,800

  3,696

  123

  3.3

  3,700

  Sheffield HA

  11,287

  5,626

  5,661

  10,568

  719

  6.8

  10,475

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  9,523

  4,613

  4,910

  8,700

  823

  9.5

  8,664

  North Cheshire HA

  8,747

  6,944

  4,682

  8,938

  -191

  -2.1

  8,821

  South Cheshire HA

  14,148

  6,944

  7,204

  14,570

  -422

  -2.9

  14,046

  East Lancashire HA

  12,441

  5,166

  7,275

  11,990

  451

  3.8

  12,036

  North West Lancashire HA

  11,350

  4,564

  6,786

  11,560

  -210

  -1.8

  11,704

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  10.508

  5,667

  4,841

  10,059

  449

  4.5

  10,088

  Southampton and SW Hampshire HA

  13,564

  6,383

  7,181

  13,933

  -369

  -2.6

  14,708

  Somerset HA

  11,623

  5,785

  5,838

  11,142

  481

  4.3

  11,122

  South and West Devon HA

  13.771

  7,315

  6,456

  13,343

  428

  3.2

  13,005

  Wiltshire HA

  12,397

  6,387

  6,010

  11,524

  873

  7.6

  10,434

  Avon HA

  21,492

  11,959

  9,533

  19,981

  1,511

  7.6

  19,990

  Birmingham HA

  15,197

  7,270

  7,927

  14,379

  818

  5.7

  14,393

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  13,540

  6,417

  7,123

  13,274

  266

  2.0

  13,577

  Wirral HA

  5,602

  3,205

  2,397

  4,909

  693

  14.1

  4,808

  Bradford HA

  10,001

  3,765

  6,236

  9,822

  179

  1.8

  10,255

  County Durham and Darlington HA

  11.508

  5,635

  5,873

  11,209

  299

  2.7

  11,313

  East Riding and Hull HA

  11,637

  6,144

  5,493

  11,673

  -36

  -0.3

  11,807

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  7,671

  3,471

  4,200

  7,778

  -107

  -1.4

  8,244

  Leeds HA

  13,675

  6,890

  6,785

  13,510

  165

  1.2

  14,286

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  6,945

  3.584

  3,361

  7,696

  -751

  -9.8

  7,839

  North Cumbria HA

  7,497

  3,069

  4,428

  7,478

  19

  0.3

  7,752

  South Humber HA

  7,848

  2,837

  5,011

  8,474

  -626

  -7.4

  8,310

  Northumberland HA

  5,177

  2,420

  2,757

  4,932

  245

  5.0

  4,910

  Sunderland HA

  6,095

  2,817

  3,278

  5,911

  184

  3.1

  6,127

  Tees HA

  10,952

  5,286

  5,666

  10,624

  328

  3.1

  10,984

  Wakefield HA

  6,721

  3,492

  3,229

  7,087

  -366

  -5.2

  7,394

  North Yorkshire HA

  13,795

  6,491

  7,304

  14,571

  -776

  -5.3

  14,460

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  10,564

  4,716

  5.848

  11,068

  -504

  -4.6

  10,760

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  12,004

  6,317

  5,633

  12,388

  -384

  -3.1

  12,123

  Dorset HA

  8,736

  4,152

  4,584

  9,745

  -1,009

  -10.4

  9,745

  North and East Devon HA

  10,991

  5,830

  5,161

  11,178

  -187

  -1.7

  11,273

  Gloucestershire HA

  8,205

  3,879

  4,326

  7,920

  285

  3.6

  7,935

  Coventry HA

  4,807

  2,575

  2,232

  4,152

  655

  15.8

  4,187

  Dudley HA

  4,792

  2,327

  2,465

  4,627

  165

  3.6

  4,327

  Herefordshire HA

  2,792

  1,338

  1,454

  2,048

  384

  15.9

  2,630

  Sandwell HA

  4,601

  2,031

  2,570

  4,466

  135

  3.0

  4,520

  Shropshire HA

  7,012

  3,984

  3,028

  6,705

  307

  4.6

  7,053

  Solihull HA

  3,487

  1,689

  1,798

  3,448

  39

  1.1

  3,523

  North Staffordshire HA

  6,473

  3,074

  3,399

  6,494

  -21

  -0.3

  6,715

  South Staffordshire HA

  12,667

  5,800

  6,867

  12,530

  137

  1.1

  12,767

  Walsall HA

  2,741

  1,533

  1,208

  2,576

  165

  6.4

  2,608

  Warwickshire HA

  10,345

  4,679

  5,666

  9,507

  838

  8.8

  9,780

  Wolverhampton HA

  3,730

  2,166

  1,564

  3,651

  79

  2.2

  3,726

  Worcestershire HA

  9,517

  4,613

  4,904

  9,738

  -221

  -2.3

  9,950

  Cambridgeshire HA

  14,616

  7,443

  7,173

  13,834

  782

  5.7

  13,641

  Norfolk HA

  18,493

  8,589

  9,904

  18,301

  192

  1.0

  17,442

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  14,876

  7,373

  7,503

  12,681

  2,195

  17.3

  13,026

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey HA

  15,076

  8,638

  6,438

  15,353

  -277

  -1.8

  15,865

  Hertfordshire HA

  21,513

  11,141

  10,372

  21,897

  -384

  -1.8

  22,373

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich HA

  13,817

  6,933

  6,884

  13,230

  587

  4.4

  14,288

  England

  1,022,300

  497,793

  524.507

  1,005,411

  16,889

  1.7

  1,007,728

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing home beds per 10,000 population over 18, (b) residential places per 10,000 population over 18 and (c) mental health nursing home beds (EMI) per 10,000 weighted population there are in (i) the Buckinghamshire health authority area and (ii) England. [19312]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information available is given in the table. Details relating to 31 March 2001 will be published at the end of November 2001, in the Statistical Bulletin "Community Care Statistics 2001: Residential personal social services for adults, England".

  Rate of nursing beds, residential places and mental health nursing beds per 10,000 population aged 18 and over in the Buckinghamshire health authority area and England in 2000, as at 31 March 2000—rates per 10,000 population aged 18+

  (i) Buckinghamshire health authority area

  (ii) England

  (a) Registered nursing beds

  36

  50

  (b) Residential places1

  64

  90

  (c) Mental health nursing home care beds2

  2

  7

  1 Information is presented for the combined area of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes

  2 Registered nursing beds for client group of 'mental health' in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of nursing posts are vacant in(a) the Buckinghamshire health authority area and (b) England. [19314]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Department of Health Vacancy Survey 2001

  Qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors

  whole-time equivalents

  3 month vacancy rates (Percentrage)

  Number of 3 month vacancies

  Number of staff in post

  England

  3.4

  9,000

  256,200

  Buckinghamshire HA

  7.8

  230

  2,680

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2000–01 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies, plus staff in post from September 1999–2000 medical and dental and non-medical workforce censuses (whole time equivalent).

  3. HA figures are based on trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of healthcare.

  4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten.

  5. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  6. England totals include staff form special health authorities.

  7. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding.

  8. Staff in post figures are taken from the Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census, September 2000.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey

  Social Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalents per 10,000 population work in social services in(a) Buckinghamshire, (b) Milton Keynes and (c) England. [19316]

  Jacqui Smith
  As at 30 September 2000 the number of whole-time equivalent personal social services staff employed by local authorities per 10,000 population was 22.1 in Buckinghamshire, 32.1 in Milton Keynes unitary authority and 43.4 in England.

  Children (Local Authority Care)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give his estimate for the number of looked after children in the care of local authority social services departments per calendar year in each of the last 10 years. [19310]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is in the table. Figures are not collected on a calendar year basis but are supplied on the basis of years ending 31 March.

  Number of children looked after by local authorities, years ending 31 March, England

  Year

  Number

  1992

  55,500

  1993

  51,600

  1994

  49,100

  1995

  49,500

  1996

  50,600

  1997

  51,100

  1998

  53,300

  1999

  55,500

  2000

  58,100

  2001

  58,900

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude children accommodated under an agreed series of short-term placements.

  2. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Department of Health annual statistical return SSDA 903

  Adoption
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what activities he includes under the heading of Adoption Support Services. [19227]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Adoption and Children Bill provides that adoption support services means counselling, advice and information in connection with adoption, and other such services as are specified in regulations. Our intention is that the adoption support services included in the regulations will include financial support.

  The White Paper "Adoption: a new approach" published in December 2000, a copy of which is available in the Library, includes examples of the types of services that could be provided in a comprehensive adoption support services. These include the provision of support groups for those affected by adoption, facilitating contact between adopted children and birth parents, providing practical help (such as respite care) to adoptive families, and child therapeutic services. The aim is to ensure that all those affected by adoption, particularly adoptive

  1107W
  families, can be helped to effectively access mainstream services and also be provided with support to meet needs specific to the adoptive placement.

  The development of the national framework for adoption support is being informed by a stakeholder group and the work of the adoption and permanence task force. We intend to publish the framework for consultation in the spring and to finalise this in the light of the consultation responses prior to publishing draft regulations for consultation.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of the likely impact of the Adoption and Children Bill within five years of enactment on(a) the number of children adopted, (b) the proportion of babies adopted as a percentage of the total and (c) the proportion of looked after children adopted as a percentage of the total compared with current figures. [19232]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is not possible to provide figures for the position five years after the enactment of the Adoption and Children Bill. However, a number of the provisions in the Bill will encourage more prospective adopters to come forward. In particular, the independent review mechanism should build confidence in the assessment process for prospective adopters and the adoption support frameworks should ensure that those adopting can be confident that they will receive the assistance they need to make any placement work. The Adoption Register for England and Wales will also facilitate the matching of children waiting for new families with approved adopters and help to increase the numbers of children being adopted.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his intentions are regarding increasing the number and nature of adoptions taking place across local authority boundaries. [19223]

  Jacqui Smith
  We expect to see an increase in the numbers of children placed across local authority boundaries, particularly of older children and sibling groups, as a result of increased consortia working and the impact of the Adoption Register for England and Wales.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to produce a report on the system of home studies for adoption placements. [19213]

  Jacqui Smith
  The White Paper "Adoption—a new approach", a copy of which is available in the Library, makes clear that the Department will carry out a fundamental review of the assessment process for adopters and the operation of adoption panels. Work has begun to determine the scope of this project and it is our intention to establish a stakeholder group to input to the process early in the New Year. We will bring forward proposals for consultation during 2002 and implement the resulting changes as part of the wider Adoption and Children Bill implementation.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely cost of regulation of voluntary adoption agencies under the terms of the Adoption and Children Bill as it relates to the Care Standards Act 2000. [19208]
  1108W
  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the anticipated costs of regulation was prepared and included in the recent consultation document "Frequencies of Inspection and Regulatory Fees", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when after Royal Assent he expects the terms of the Adoption and Children's Bill to come into force. [19228]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are considering the timetable for bringing the measures in the Adoption and Children Bill into force and will come to a view as the Bill makes its progress through Parliament.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is regarding fees which may be charged by adoption agencies in respect of the provision of services to persons providing facilities as part of the adoption service resulting from the Adoption and Children Bill. [19211]

  Jacqui Smith
  Clause 11 of the Adoption and Children Bill enables the appropriate Minister (the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales) to make regulations prescribing the fees which may be paid and charged by adoption agencies to organisations such as other adoption agencies and adoption support agencies in respect of the provision of services as part of the Adoption Service. We believe that the existing inter-agency fee system operated by adoption agencies should continue to operate as it does at the moment. However, we have promised to keep the inter-agency fee under review and this power will enable us to make any changes we may consider necessary at a future date.

  It is not our intention to enable local authorities to charge adopters or prospective adopters in respect of domestic adoption services, and nothing in Clause 11 permits them to do so.

  However, the Bill enables the appropriate Minister to make regulations prescribing the fees which may be charged by local authorities to adopters and prospective adopters in respect of intercountry adoption. It is intended that the regulations will enable local authorities to charge fees to contribute towards their costs in providing information, preparing and assessing prospective adopters, obtaining medical reports and police checks and preparing post-placement and post-adoption reports in respect of intercountry adoption cases. These charges will not be permitted to include any element of profit.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study he has made of cases of criminal assault against birth parents by their adopted children; and how many such cases he has studied. [19205]

  Jacqui Smith
  There has been no such study. Concerns have been expressed about the small minority of cases where birth parents may be placed at some risk where access is provided to the birth records.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effectiveness at tracking adopted children in the system operating in England and Wales. [19309]

  Jacqui Smith
  Looked after children who are placed for adoption are monitored through central data collections and local tracking mechanisms in the same way as any other looked after child.
  1109W
  Once an adoption order is made it would not be appropriate to track adopted children in this way. However, we are committed to securing long-term success and stability for adoptions. That is why in the White Paper "Adoption—a new approach", a copy of which is in the Library, we undertook to work with the relevant stakeholders to develop appropriate ways of obtaining regular information on the success of permanent placements, including adoption (for example, through voluntary anonymous surveys and through the provision of adoption support services). We will use this information to inform future policy developments and to help us to develop and set targets that focus on the success and stability of all permanent placements, both before and after the making of relevant Court Orders. We aim to set such targets by 2004–05.

  Next year, we shall develop an integrated children's system, a key theme of our Quality Protects programme, which will bring together planning and record keeping for children in need in the community and those looked after by local authorities. It will provide a single, coherent record for the child's case history until adoption and will help planning and decision making. The aim is to improve individual local authorities' information and record keeping.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the procedure for appeal against the findings of a panel will be and what complaints procedure will be available to the applicants in his proposals for setting up review panels in clause 12 of the Adoption and Children Bill; [19217]

  (2) which ombudsman will be responsible for complaints against adoption review panels proposed in the Adoption and Children Bill. [19218]

  Jacqui Smith
  To encourage more people to apply to adopt and to build confidence in the adopter assessment process, the White Paper "Adoption—a new approach" committed the Government to provide an independent review where an adoption agency intends to turn down a prospective adopter's application. A copy of the White Paper has been placed in the Library. The Bill includes powers enabling the appropriate Minister to make regulations to establish such a mechanism, which may be run by an independent body. The intention is that the independent review mechanism will review, at a prospective adopter's request, applications that adoption agencies have indicated they are minded to turn down. It is also intended to use the independent review mechanism to review adoption agency qualifying determinations about the disclosure of information concerning a person's adoption. It will remain the responsibility of the adoption agency to make a final decision after taking into consideration the recommendation of the independent review. Detail on how the review mechanism will work, the complaints procedure and the determinations that it will be used to review will he fully consulted on.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under clause 12 of the Adoption and Children Bill, to which organisations he might delegate his functions in respect of the operation of review panels. [19307]
  1110W
  Jacqui Smith
  To encourage more people to apply to adopt and to build confidence in the adopter assessment process, the White Paper "Adoption—a new approach" committed the Government to provide an independent review where an adoption agency intends to turn down a prospective adopter's application. A copy of the White Paper has been placed in the Library.

  The Bill includes powers enabling the appropriate Minister to establish a mechanism, which may be run by an independent body, to review qualifying adoption agency determinations. Details of how the review mechanism system will work will be fully consulted on. Any organisation wishing to apply to operate the independent review mechanism will be required to demonstrate that it has the relevant expertise to enable it to perform this function.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the representations he has received regarding adoption since publication of the draft adoption Bill in March. [19296]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have received representations from the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services, NORCAP, Adoption UK, Barnardos, and many other interested parties and private individuals.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the meaning of child's welfare in the Adoption and Children Bill. [19229]

  Jacqui Smith
  Clause 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Bill makes the child's welfare the paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency in any decision about the adoption of a child. It brings the welfare test into line with that in the Children Act 1989, with the important addition that the court or agency must consider the child's welfare throughout his life, in recognition of the lifelong implications of adoption. Under Clause 1(3) the court or agency must also bear in mind that in general any delay is likely to prejudice the child's welfare.

  The "child's welfare" is not defined in the Bill, as is the position under both the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption Act 1976. Case law under the 1989 and 1976 Acts shows that the courts have given a wide interpretation to the term "welfare". Clause 1(4) sets out some of the issues that will be relevant in a "welfare checklist" that must be applied by the court or agency in determining the best interests of the child in any decision relating to adoption. It includes a requirement to have regard to the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings about the decision and to his particular needs. It also obliges the court or agency to have regard to the relationship the child has with his relatives, the prospects of and benefits to the child of this relationship continuing, the ability of his relatives to provide the child with a secure home and to meet his needs, and their views concerning the decision relating to the adoption of the child.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a preliminary list of those overseas countries to which Chapter 6 of the Adoption and Children Bill will apply. [19294]
  1111W
  Jacqui Smith
  Chapter 6 of the Adoption and Children Bill covers all adoptions with a foreign element. This includes children habitually resident outside the British Islands brought into the United Kingdom by individuals habitually resident in the United Kingdom, whether they were adopted outside the United Kingdom or it is planned to adopt them in the United Kingdom. It also includes the taking out of the United Kingdom for adoption children who are Commonwealth citizens or habitually resident in the United Kingdom.

  Once the Bill is implemented overseas countries will fall into three distinct categories:

  (i) Those that have ratified the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. Prospective adopters will be required to follow prescribed procedures to adopt under the Convention. Convention adoptions will be automatically recognised in the United Kingdom. We are currently consulting on this system and the draft guidance and draft Regulations for England and Wales to be issued under the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999.

  (ii) Those that have adoption procedures that meet requirements prescribed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (following consultation with the National Assembly for Wales). These are specified "overseas adoptions" and will be recognised in the United Kingdom. The intention is to consult upon the criteria prior to making regulations. It is likely that they will be based upon the key principles enshrined in international law, including the law in the overseas country:

  ensures that the child has been freely given up for adoption and that this has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind:

  makes attempts to place the child in a family in their own country;

  confirms that intercountry adoption is in the child's best interests;

  requires that the domestic and intercountry adoption arrangements and requirements are the same;

  ensures that profit is not made from the process;

  ensures that the prospective adopters have been assessed and approved as suitable to adopt in their home country.

  Prospective adopters habitually resident in the United Kingdom will be required to follow the prescribed procedures and satisfy conditions prior to adopting overseas to avoid committing an offence under Clause 80 of the Adoption and Children Bill.

  (iii) Those countries that have not ratified the Hague Convention and do not have procedures that meet the prescribed criteria for inclusion in the Order specifying "overseas adoptions". Any adoption order made in one of these countries would not be recognised under United Kingdom law and so any child brought into the UK from one of these countries would need to be adopted under UK law. Prospective adopters habitually resident in the UK will be required to follow the prescribed procedures and satisfy prescribed conditions prior to bringing a child back into the UK to avoid committing an offence under Clause 80 of the Adoption and Children Bill.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many overseas adoption applications have been processed by his Department in each of the last five years. [19207]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table shows how many overseas adoption applications the Department has processed in each of the last five years.
  1112W

  Intercountry adoption applications processed by the Department of Health

  Number

  2000

  351

  1999

  277

  1998

  258

  1997

  221

  1996

  310

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Adoption and Children Bill. [19210]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Adoption and Children Bill was published on 19 October 2001, the date of introduction of the Bill. It is available in the Library and on the Department's website.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his proposals are for which local authority should be responsible for the resourcing and provision of specialist educational provision for persons adopted outside of the original local authority's area. [19222]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Adoption and Children Bill provides a power to make regulations setting out where the responsibility lies for assessment and provision of adoption support services in cases where a child is placed with an adoptive family living in a different local authority area. We will use this power to make regulations which put in place a clear system for the provision of adoption support services in these circumstances. We will also make regulations to ensure the appropriate flow of funding between local authorities in such cases. These regulations will form part of the new framework for adoption support which we are currently developing. We intend to consult fully on the framework and the draft regulations, to ensure that we get the detail right.

  We also intend to issue guidance and directions to health authorities, primary care trusts and local education authorities to ensure the joined-up planning and provision of public services in connection with adoption.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of children subject to special guardianship orders which would be issued under Clause 110 of the Adoption and Children Bill as opposed to full adoption proceedings. [19214]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is impossible to estimate accurately the proportion of children who are likely to be the subject to a special guardianship order as compared with adoption. However, we believe the order will be of particular benefit to older children who do not wish to be adopted, but who do want the greater security offered by special guardianship. We have made it clear that special guardianship orders will be accompanied by access to a full range of support services including, where appropriate, financial support, to help the placement succeed. The responses to the consultation on the report of the performance and innovation unit's on adoption1 were overwhelmingly in favour of creating such an order. We will continue to consult fully on how best to introduce the special guardianship order to optimise its use, where appropriate.

  1 Adoption: issued for consultation, (July 2000). Cabinet Office, London
  1113W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his proposals are for payment of allowances for the new special guardianship orders proposed in the Adoption and Children Bill. [19295]

  Jacqui Smith
  The White Paper "Adoption—a new approach", a copy of which is in the Library, made it clear that special guardianship orders would be accompanied by access to a full range of support services including, where appropriate, financial support, to help the placement succeed. This is reflected in the Adoption and Children Bill. The details of these arrangements will be included in a draft national framework for adoption financial support which we intend to publish for consultation next spring.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for encouraging the provision of intermediary services to people connected with adoption as a result of the Adoption and Children Bill. [19226]

  Jacqui Smith
  The provision of intermediary services to people connected with adoption will be considered as part of the development of the adoption support framework promised in the White Paper "Adoption—a new approach", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to publish regulations relating to the provision of assessments and support services for people connected with adoption. [19221]

  Jacqui Smith
  We intend to publish our proposals for the handling of assessments for adoption support and a draft framework for the provision of adoption support services, including financial support, for consultation in the spring. After considering the consultation responses we will publish for consultation the draft Regulations to give effect to our final proposals under Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Adoption and Children Bill.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average time for completion of adoption for children identified as potential adoptees under the age of one in each of the last 10 years. [19212]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the duration of the period between 'best interest decision' and date of adoption has been collected centrally only since 1 April 2000. In order to show a 10-year time series, the data in the table show the average duration between the date of start of care and date of adoption for children who were aged under one when care started.

  Estimate number of children adopted from care during years ending 31 March 1993–2001 aged under one year at start of latest period of care, and the average duration of that period of care, England

  Average duration

  Number

  Years

  Months

  1993

  1,150

  2

  7

  1994

  1,000

  2

  8

  1995

  930

  2

  9

  1996

  910

  2

  7

  1997

  890

  2

  5

  1998

  1,190

  2

  7

  1114W

  Estimate number of children adopted from care during years ending 31 March 1993–2001 aged under one year at start of latest period of care, and the average duration of that period of care, England

  Average duration

  Number

  Years

  Months

  1999

  1,270

  2

  2

  2000

  1,520

  2

  2

  2001

  1,710

  2

  2

  Sources:

  1993 to 1997—SSDA903

  1998 to 2000—SSDA903 and Key Statistics

  2000-AD1 return

  At 31 March 2001, the average length of time between entry into care and the best interest decision for all children adopted was one year, one month.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the procedures for obtaining a child's ascertainable wishes as set out in the Adoption and Children Bill. [19231]

  Jacqui Smith
  Clause 1(4)(a) of the Adoption and Children Bill provides courts and adoption agencies with a legal obligation to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings about all decisions relating to adoption, and to take them into account considering the child's age and understanding. The precise procedure will be set out for adoption agencies in regulations and guidance, and for the courts in court rules and in guidance.

  We intend to consult on the new draft regulations and guidance before the Bill's provisions are implemented.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many foster parents are on the register of social services departments in each local authority in England and Wales; and how many were on the register in(a) 1990 and (b) 1995. [19215]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures for 1990 and 1995 are not held.

  We do have data supplied to the Department by councils from 1998–99 when they applied for training support project grants at the beginning of each financial year to train/assess foster carers to the Care NVQ Level 3. These figures detail the numbers of foster carers who were contracted directly by the council and via independent fostering agencies.

  Data are as follows:

  Number of foster carers

  Directly contracted by local councils

  Contracted by LCs via independent agencies

  Total

  1998–99

  29,689

  835

  30,524

  1999–2000

  30,166

  1,085

  31,251

  2000–01

  30,003

  1,502

  31,505

  2001–02

  30,343

  2,023

  32,366

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what advice he based his proposals to restrict the right of access to an adopted person's birth certificate and birth parent details granted in the Adoption Act 1976 as set out in Chapter 3 of the Adoption and Children Bill. [19204]
  1115W
  Jacqui Smith
  Officials have advised me that section 51 of the Adoption Act 1976 has worked well in the vast majority of cases. However, since the 1976 Act there have been concerns about a small number of cases where there could be a risk to birth parents if they were traced through the birth records.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to change the number of(a) voluntary organisations and (b) informal groups providing adoption support services in England and Wales. [19225]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Adoption and Children Bill includes new provisions requiring adoption support agencies to register with the National Care Standards Commission in England and with the National Assembly in Wales. Agencies in addition to adoption agencies which are registered with the National Care Standards Commission will be able to provide specialist support in connection with adoption. Registration in this way will ensure that such services are provided to a high standard.

  The Bill's provisions on registration of adoption support agencies will provide an improved level of protection for people receiving adoption support services. Our intention is to regulate organisations and individuals providing professional support services, not to prevent people from providing informal support in their own homes.

  We promised in our White Paper "Adoption: a new approach", published in December 2000, to develop new frameworks for adoption support and financial support. We will publish the frameworks for consultation in the spring. There may be a slight increase in the number of organisations providing adoption support as a wider range of services are made available under the frameworks.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the(a) selection of members, (b) qualifications and training of members, (c) payment of members, (d) scrutiny and (e) likely operating cost, in relation to review panels set up under Clause 12 of the Adoption and Children Bill: and at what stages he envisages review panels will operate. [19216]

  Jacqui Smith
  To encourage more people to apply to adopt and to build confidence in the adopter assessment process, the White Paper "Adoption—a new approach" committed the Government to provide an independent

  NHS trust

  Consortia name

  Builder

  Facilities management

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals

  1. Concept Healthcare

  1. Kier

  1. Building and Property

  2. Healthcare Projects

  2. Skanska

  2. Medirest

  Havering Hospitals

  1. Byhave Ltd.

  1. Bouygues

  1. Ecovert

  2. Catalyst

  2. Bovis

  2. Sodexho

  Gloucestershire Royal

  Gloucester Healthcare Partnerships

  Balfinger and Berger

  M and W Zander

  University Hospitals Warwickshire and Coventry

  Skanska Innisfree

  Skanska

  ISS Mediclean

  Central Manchester Healthcare

  1. Catalyst Healthcare

  1. Bovis

  1. Sodexho

  2. Mowlem Health Solutions

  2. Mowlem

  2. Aqumen

  3. New Hospitals

  3. Taylor Woodrow

  3. Medirest

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Healthcare

  Balfour Beatty Charterhouse

  Balfour Beatty

  Haden

  North Bristol NHS Trust
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if hospital improvement plans submitted by the North Bristol NHS Trust are among the proposals by trusts that
  1116W
  review where an adoption agency intends to turn down a prospective adopter's application. A copy of the White Paper has been placed in the Library. The Bill includes powers enabling the appropriate Minister to make regulations to establish a mechanism, which may be run by an independent body, to review qualifying adoption agency determinations. Details of how the review mechanism system will work, including the composition of the body and its membership, will be fully consulted On.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of reasonableness for a period of delay as used in the Adoption and Children Bill. [19230]

  Jacqui Smith
  This will depend on the facts of the particular case.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for funding centrally the operation of the review panels under the Adoption and Children Bill. [19308]

  Jacqui Smith
  The cost of establishing and administering the independent review mechanism will be met centrally from the extra £66.5 million for adoption announced in the White Paper "Adoption—a new approach", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. We have promised to consult on the detail of how the independent review mechanism will operate, to ensure that we get it right. The running costs of the review mechanism will be taken into account in the forthcoming spending review.

  Capital Spending Projects
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those capital spending projects being negotiated in the NHS where the lead on building and management involves an overseas firm or organisation. [19298]

  Mr. Hutton
  Detailed negotiation information is only held centrally on private finance initiative projects with a capital value of £25 million and over. No information is held centrally regarding the country in which the bidders are either registered or owned. Information is therefore supplied for all trusts which have shortlisted or preferred bidders, ie: the stage at which negotiations begin. These are listed in the table.

  he has prioritised for capital investment under his 10 year plan. [19193]

  Ms Blears
  No detailed proposals for a major redevelopment of hospital services have yet been submitted to the Department by the North Bristol National Health Service Trust.

SCOTLAND

  Section 28 (Local Government Act)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment she has made of the effect of the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 in Scotland; [11851]

  (2) what representations she has received about the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 in Scotland. [11850]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have received no representations about—and made no assessment of the effect of—the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 in Scotland.

TREASURY

  Special Purpose Vehicles
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury(a) monitors and (b) offers advice to other Government Departments on special purpose vehicles. [18222]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury does not monitor special purpose vehicles (SPVs). Where it is directly involved in individual public-private partnerships, the Treasury will take a close interest in the performance of the contractual counterparties, including where these are SPVs. Its role in agreeing broad strategies and approaches to the use of SPVs will not involve it in advising Departments in special cases.

  As part of its operational and business guidance for Departments, the Office of Government Commerce published in October guidance on the financial appraisal of suppliers, which includes advice on assessing bidders' financial and economic standing, whether they are SPVs or single companies.

  Recipients of (a) tax credits and (b) certain income related benefits in the Arundel and South Downs constituency

  Working families tax credit (WFTC)/family credit (FC)

  Disabled persons tax credit/disability working allowance (DWA)

  Income support (IS)

  Jobseeker's allowance (income based) (JSA)

  Total

  May 1997

  700

  10

  3,500

  600

  4,800

  May 1998

  500

  17

  3,100

  200

  3,800

  May 1999

  600

  20

  3,000

  300

  3,900

  May 2000

  700

  20

  2,900

  200

  3,069

  May 2001

  900

  17

  3,200

  100

  3,324

  Notes:

  1. Apart from DPTC and DWA, the figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample. They are subject to sampling error and therefore shown to the nearest hundred.

  2. Recipients of WFTC/FC or DPTC/DWA who also receive IS or JSA are included only in the first two columns. This eliminates double counting in the total.

  3. WFTC and DPTC replaced FC and DA from October 1999.

  4. DPTC and DWA figures are for April.

  Sources:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1997–May 2001

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1997–May 2001

  Working Families' Tax Credit/Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1997–May 2001

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit/Disability Working Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries April 1997–April 2001

  Vocational Training Relief
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will replace the vocational training relief. [17989]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In his pre-Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the Government's new approach to training and to tackling the intermediate skills deficit in the UK work force.

  HIPC Initiative
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the HIPC initiative on the debt levels of the HIPC nations; and if he will make a statement. [18489]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK believes that the enhanced HIPC initiative is working and already 24 countries have qualified for debt relief. According to World bank and IMF estimates these countries will, on average, have their debts reduced by two-thirds, this will bring their debt service ratios to below the developing country average. The World bank and IMF also estimate that HIPC is delivering US$2.4 billion annually to those countries that have reached Decision Point, and that these countries are allocating about 75 per cent. of their debt relief to social services, such as education and health. Of these, four countries have exited the process and have benefited from irrevocable debt cancellation. The UK continues to work hard to ensure that the HIPC initiative is a success, and to ensure it delivers a sustainable exit from debt for the poorest countries. The UK continues to push for other countries to adopt its policies of offering 100 per cent. interim relief, and holding payment in trust for those countries that have to yet benefit from interim relief.

  Arundel and South Downs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people received(a) tax credits and (b) means-tested benefits in the constituency of Arundel and South Downs in each year since April 1997. [18313]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available information for Arundel and South Downs is in the table:
  1119W
  Housing benefit and council tax benefit figures are not available for the Arundel and South Downs constituency. The table shows figures for the local authorities overlapping the constituency:

  Total housing benefit and council tax benefit case load for local authorities overlapping the Arundel and South Downs constituency, May 1997-May 2001

  Total:

  Local authority/period

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  Arun

  May 1997

  7,820

  10,900

  May 1998

  7,310

  10,120

  May 1999

  7,420

  10,190

  May 2000

  6,640

  9,200

  May 2001

  6,330

  8,840

  Chichester

  May 1997

  5,450

  6,620

  May 1998

  5,160

  6,270

  May 1999

  5,130

  6,310

  May 2000

  4,570

  5,510

  May 2001

  4,460

  5,580

  Horsham

  May 1997

  4,780

  5,680

  May 1998

  4,580

  5,370

  May 1999

  4,320

  4,990

  May 2000

  4,050

  4,680

  May 2001

  4,030

  4,700

  Mid Sussex

  May 1997

  4,700

  5,660

  May 1998

  4,270

  5,020

  May 1999

  4,080

  4,770

  May 2000

  3,670

  4,310

  May 2001

  3,960

  4,500

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 cases.

  3. If the local authority failed to respond, figures for the missing data will have been estimated.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. case load stock-count taken each May from 1997 to 2001.

  Euro
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to seek revision of the framework set down by the Stability and Growth Pact as part of the preparations for UK euro entry. [18518]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will only recommend joining a successful single currency if it is in our national economic interest to do so, and if the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The five tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made.

  Pensions
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many members of defined contribution pension schemes are paying the(a) higher rate and (b) standard rate of tax; [18627]
  1120W
  (2) if he will estimate the number of members of defined contribution pension schemes paying the (a) higher rate and (b) standard rate of tax. [18610]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available estimates for 2001–02 are contained in the table, it is not possible to break down those contributing to occupational schemes according to whether they are in defined benefit or defined contribution schemes. All those contributing to personal pensions will be in defined contribution schemes.

  Thousands

  Number of individuals with contributions

  Occupational pension schemes1

  Personal pension schemes2

  Marginal rate of income tax

  Basic rate

  8,000

  3,500

  Higher rate

  2,000

  500

  1 Approximate estimates based on overall numbers from the GAD survey of occupational pension schemes and survey data on the earnings distribution of contributors.

  2 Approximate estimates based on overall numbers from plan managers, survey data, and relief claimed on tax returns by higher rate and self-employed contributors. Figures are provisional and consistent with the 1999–2000 Survey of Personal Incomes projected to 2001–02 levels of earnings and prices.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many defined contribution occupational pension schemes are covered by the pre-1987 tax regime; and how many members of such schemes there are; [18611]

  (2) how many defined contribution occupational pension schemes are covered by the 1987 to 1989 tax regime; [18626]

  (3) how many occupational pension schemes are covered by the (a) pre-1987 and (b) 1987 to 1989 tax regime. [18604]

  Ruth Kelly
  Latest estimates from the Government Actuary's Department Survey of Occupational Schemes (1995) suggested that there were 8.8 million active members in 38,000 defined benefit occupational schemes; 1.1 million members in 109,000 defined contribution occupational schemes; and around 0.3 million members in 4,000 mixed defined benefit/defined contribution schemes. It is not possible to derive from this survey or from other sources how many schemes and members are covered by the different tax regimes.

  Railtrack
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 267W, on the accounting treatment of the successor organisation to Railtrack, on what date he received a reply from the Office for National Statistics; and if he will place in the Library advice given by the ONS on the accounting treatment of other possible successor organisations to Railtrack. [19183]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  ONS replied on 5 October to Treasury's request of 3 October for advice on the accounting treatment of a company limited by guarantee that was a possible successor organisation to Railtrack. ONS has not given any advice on other possible successor organisations to Railtrack.

  Inland Revenue Investigations
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue make inquiries into family backgrounds in advance of looking at the financial affairs of the individual into whom they are inquiring. [18889]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not routinely look into family backgrounds before commencing a tax inquiry. But there are circumstances in which it would be relevant to do so. For example, the main reason for considering whether to inquire might be that an individual's reported income seemed much lower than his probable expenditure.

  In such a case the Revenue might look at the financial position of others in the household to see whether their incomes and, therefore, possible contribution to family finances might account for any perceived shortfall. Preliminary research of this kind helps to focus inquiries on those cases presenting the biggest risks.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 270W, on capital assets, what guidelines the (a) National Audit Office and (b) Treasury issue on how to classify who bears the risks and rewards associated with an asset. [19189]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Generally accepted accounting practices are used to determine who bears the risks and rewards associated with an asset, and hence its accounting treatment. These are applied by accountants working for departments, and subsequently audited by the National Audit Office (NAO). The Office for National Statistics (ONS) follows the same treatment for national accounts.

  The Treasury's "Resource Accounting Manual" makes clear that all complex transactions should be accounted for under the overriding principles of the Accounting Standards Board's (ASB) Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 5 "Reporting the Substance of Transactions". Such transactions include those where ownership of capital assets reverts to the public sector, for leasing transactions, the more specific principles of the ASB's Statement of Standard Accounting Practice (SSAP) 21 "Accounting for Leases and Hire Contract Contracts". For Private Finance Initiative transactions, more specific guidance is given in the Treasury document "Technical Note no. 1 (revised)—How to Account for PFI Transactions", which sets out additional practical guidance on how to apply the ASB's Application Note "Amendment to FRS5—Private Finance Initiative and Similar Contracts".

  The aspect of the question relating to National Audit Office guidelines has been referred to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission who can respond on behalf of the NAO.

  Inland Revenue (Informers)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to Section 32 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890, what criteria the Commissioners of Inland Revenue employ to determine whether to exercise their discretion afforded by the Inland Revenue 1122W
  Regulation Act 1890 to reward an informer; when these criteria were established; and how they differ from the criteria previously in force. [18927]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Financial rewards can be made to an informer following the conclusion of an inquiry where tax is recovered as a result of the information provided. In deciding the amount of any reward, the Commissioners have regard to the amount of tax recovered. Calculation details are not disclosed since this would enable an informer to estimate the amount of tax recovered, which would breach the Revenue's duty of confidentiality to the taxpayer.

  It is not possible to say whether these criteria have applied unaltered since the enactment of 1890, but they have remained unchanged for many years.

  National Insurance (Married Women)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to inform working women of the consequences of paying the married women's rate of National Insurance. [16503]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to Inland Revenue leaflet CA 13 "National Insurance contributions for women with reduced elections". The leaflet, which was updated in May 2001 and can also be found on the Inland Revenue website, explains what contributions married women pay and the implications for future contributory benefit entitlement resulting from keeping their reduced liability.

  The Inland Revenue undertook a major publicity exercise in October 2000 writing to around 250,000 married women who had previously elected to pay reduced rate National Insurance contributions. The letter advised them to consider their elections following recent structural changes to National Insurance contributions. A dedicated helpline was set up to provide further information and assistance and some 63,000 telephone inquiries were received.

  The September 2001 edition of the Employers Bulletin, which again can be found on the Inland Revenue's website, included an article about married women's reduced rate contributions recommending action that employers should take on a regular basis to remind their employees, who pay a reduced rate, what information they need to report which could affect their National Insurance liability.

  NHS (Additional Spending)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the cost-effectiveness of additional spending on the NHS since 1997. [19286]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Government Departments are required to demonstrate that all their expenditure on services provides value for money. The Public Service Agreement between the Treasury and the Department of Health requires NHS trusts to converge over time on a benchmark defined by the cost of care commissioned from NHS trusts which perform well against indicators of fair access, quality and responsiveness. The Treasury monitors progress against the benchmark regularly.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the operation of the Climate Change Levy; and if he will make a statement. [16499]

  Mr. Boateng
  As with all taxes, the Climate Change Levy is reviewed as part of the normal Budget process.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Armed Police
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is given to armed police to deal with firearms situations involving suspects suffering from mental illness. [16686]

  Mr. Denham
  The basic training that all new recruits receive includes an element that raises awareness of mental illness and highlights the importance of communicating effectively and sensitively with people suffering from a mental disorder. Individual forces also provide further training for their officers on these issues. Details are not held centrally of all such local provision.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers Manual of Guidance on police use of firearms recognises that people suffering from mental illness may not realise the seriousness of the situation they are in or respond `normally' to conventional negotiating strategies. The guidance stresses the importance of police negotiators, armed officers and Firearms Incident Commanders having an understanding of people who suffer from mental illness and suggests some actions which may reduce the risk of firearms use. It also stresses that a person's impairment does not reduce the potential harm they may inflict if the incident is not resolved, and that it is the role of the police to deal with the threat irrespective of motive.

  It is important that the Government should continue to explore with the police all possible options for ensuring that officers are able to deal with such incidents effectively and in a way that protects the public and police officers.

  In conjunction with the Association of Chief Police Officers and Northern Ireland Office, we are currently reviewing, as a matter of priority, the range of 'less lethal' alternatives to firearms. As one would expect, all have differing levels of risk and effectiveness associated with them, and any advantages of such alternatives have to be properly and fully assessed against any disadvantages.

  In addition, under section 79(1) of the Police Act 1996, I have asked the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) to report on the lessons to be learned from investigations supervised by them since January 1998 into incidents in which police shootings occurred and which resulted in death or injury. The PCA have begun work on this review, and I have asked them to report within six months. The report will be laid before Parliament and published.

  Fingerprinting
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what quality control systems are in place to ensure the accurate retrieval of fingerprints found at the scene of a crime. [16951]
  1124W
  Mr. Denham
  The training of a fingerprint expert requires that before that person is registered as an expert, he/she must be competent to deal with the process for retrieval of fingerprints from a scene of crime, together with accurate recording of that process. That process includes a requirement to take a Polaroid photograph indicating precisely where the fingerprint has been lifted from and sign across edge of the tape once the fingerprint has been lifted. The essential steps to ensure the probity and continuity of the exhibited fingerprint have been tried and tested within the Criminal Justice System on countless occasions. They meet the high standards of integrity required by our courts.

  15 Forces have the ISO9002 Quality Standard for its procedures and have attained that quality standard. The remainder have met an agreed national Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) standard which is audited at least once a year by an independent audit process.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the fingerprint service in the United Kingdom. [16952]

  Mr. Denham
  I do not have plans to review the fingerprint service in the United Kingdom. The Association of Chief Police Officers created a Project Group to review the fingerprint evidential standard in 1996. Only after a meticulous programme of work spanning five years, including a comprehensive review of the processes and procedures within all 42 fingerprint bureaux in the 43 Forces in England and Wales, was the evidential standard changed on 11 July 2001.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for removing failed asylum seekers. [16922]

  Angela Eagle
  The public service agreement target is to enforce the immigration laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion of failed asylum seekers. Latest information on performance against the target will be published in the 'Asylum Statistics Q3 2001 United Kingdom' on 30 November.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for improving the satisfaction of victims and witnesses with their treatment in the criminal justice system. [17059]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The 2000 British Crime Survey showed that 58 per cent. of victims were satisfied with their treatment by the criminal justice system. An equivalent figure from the 2001 British Crime Survey is awaited.

  The 2000 Witness Satisfaction, which was the first national survey of witnesses, showed that 75 per cent. of witnesses were very or fairly satisfied with the treatment they received. A similar survey in 2002 will show whether the proportion of satisfied witnesses has increased.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target for efficiency savings in the Police Service. [17308]
  1125W
  Mr. Denham
  I am pleased to say that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has reported that all 43 police forces in England and Wales achieved the two per cent. efficiency savings required in 2000–01 under the public service agreement. The requirement included an obligation for efficiency gains to be used for the benefit of front line policing. A copy of the HMIC report is in the Library.

  UK Youth Parliament
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the manifesto submitted to the Government for comment by the UK Youth Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [18016]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall be responding as soon as possible to the manifesto on behalf of the Government.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been obtained and how many further orders are awaiting court hearings, broken down by area, since their introduction; and if he will make a statement on their impact on antisocial behaviour. [17127]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: Official statistics on the number of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBO) taken out are based on quarterly returns received from Magistrates' Courts Committees. A review identified an undercount and my Department therefore undertook an exercise with the police to obtain more reliable figures. As a result of this reconciliation exercise the total number of ASBOs issued up until the end of September this year was 466, which is 184 more than previously reported. A breakdown by area is given in the table.

  Information is not held centrally on the number of applications for ASBOs awaiting court hearing.

  Since their introduction in April 1999 ASBOs have been used successfully in a variety of cases and have made a real difference for the better in people's lives.

  Number of antisocial behaviour orders issued as from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2001 by police force area

  ASBOs

  Police force area

  Issued

  Avon and Somerset

  28

  Bedfordshire

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  8

  Cheshire

  —

  Cleveland

  10

  Cumbria

  2

  Derbyshire

  12

  Devon and Cornwall

  10

  Dorset

  4

  Durham

  10

  Essex

  —

  Gloucestershire

  4

  Greater Manchester

  24

  Hampshire

  4

  Hertfordshire

  9

  Humberside

  11

  Kent

  15

  Lancashire

  16

  Leicestershire

  5

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1126W

  Number of antisocial behaviour orders issued as from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2001 by police force area

  ASBOs

  Merseyside

  17

  Metropolitan Police1

  40

  Norfolk

  17

  Northamptonshire

  3

  Northumbria

  15

  North Yorkshire

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  16

  South Yorkshire

  6

  Staffordshire

  10

  Suffolk

  5

  Surrey

  4

  Sussex

  7

  Thames Valley

  7

  Warwickshire

  3

  West Mercia

  47

  West Midlands

  65

  West Yorkshire

  15

  Wiltshire

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  Gwent

  1

  North Wales

  1

  South Wales

  2

  England and Wales

  466

  1 Including City of London.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what other Home Office contracts have been awarded to the company providing the Criminal Records since 1997 and were completed to(a) time and (b) budget. [17746]

  Mr. Denham
  Information available for other contracts awarded to Capita by my Department since 1997, which were completed(a) on time and (b) on budget, is as follows:

  Year

  Company

  Contract

  1997

  Capita1

  Designing and Managing Building

  Projects

  1998–99

  Capita EC

  Environment/Space Planning

  1998

  Capita Business Service

  Recruitment of General Managers

  1998

  Capita Training

  Conferences and Training

  1999

  Capita Business Service

  Consultancy Support

  1999

  Capita Business Service

  Productions of Purchase Manual

  1999

  Capita Business Service

  Efficiency Review

  2000

  Capita Business Service

  HMP Blakenhurst Bid Team

  2000–01

  Capita Business Service

  Quantum Project

  1 Advisory contracts for which Capita was not the prime contractor

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on progress with the Criminal Records Bureau; [17745]

  (2) what is the (a) original and (b) latest (i) completion date and (ii) cost for the Criminal Records Bureau. [17747]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 449W.

  It has always been the intention that the Criminal Records Bureau should be self-financing by means of the charges that it makes for the Disclosures that it produces.

  Motorways
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask chief constables in England and Wales for a report on the effectiveness of Regulation 12 of the Motorway Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982, as amended, in their county areas. [17410]

  Mr. Denham
  The enforcement of motorway regulations is an operational matter for chief officers of police. I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that they consider that the prohibition of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and coaches from the outside lane of motorways enhances traffic flow and affords other drivers some degree of protection from large vehicles. Most HGV drivers observe the prohibition, although a small minority exercise poor lane discipline which can cause annoyance to other motorists. There is, however, little evidence to suggest that this is a significant problem, and we do not consider that a review of the regulation is necessary at this time.

  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas in Thames Valley police force area: Number of crimes recorded by the police per 1,000 population—April 2000 to March 2001

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary dwelling

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Aylesbury Vale

  6.3

  0.4

  0.8

  3.3

  3.4

  12.9

  Bracknell Forest

  6.3

  0.4

  0.5

  3.2

  4.5

  11.0

  Cherwell

  6.7

  0.3

  0.2

  2.8

  4.2

  9.1

  Chiltern

  3.4

  0.3

  0.5

  4.0

  3.2

  7.6

  Milton Keynes

  10.0

  0.8

  1.0

  5.8

  7.4

  11.6

  Oxford

  13.2

  0.7

  2.3

  10.8

  8.6

  17.3

  Reading

  10.8

  0.8

  3.7

  12.8

  11.6

  25.4

  Slough

  11.1

  0.8

  2.7

  12.4

  10.1

  40.3

  South Bucks

  4.1

  0.3

  0.8

  13.0

  6.9

  30.6

  South Oxfordshire

  4.1

  0.3

  0.1

  5.4

  3.6

  9.5

  Vale of White Horse

  4.9

  0.6

  0.2

  3.1

  3.0

  5.0

  West Berkshire

  4.5

  0.3

  0.3

  3.0

  3.1

  10.3

  West Oxfordshire

  3.8

  0.3

  0.2

  1.9

  1.7

  5.6

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  8.3

  0.5

  0.7

  7.1

  4.9

  23.9

  Wokingham

  3.1

  0.2

  0.7

  5.6

  3.4

  12.4

  Wycombe

  6.2

  0.4

  0.8

  7.4

  5.5

  12.1

  Note:

  Crime rates based on resident population may give a misleading impression in areas where numbers of non-residents, such as commuters and visitors, are significant.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures will be available to public authorities to protect the academic confidentiality of information contained in project licences held under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 after the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is implemented. [18297]

  Angela Eagle
  The Freedom of Information Act 2000 covers a wide range of public authorities including public sector academic institutions. The right of access will apply to information held by such institutions subject to the conditions and exemptions set out in the Act.

  Section 41 of the Act exempts as a class information obtained from any other person if its disclosure would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person. Other exemptions in the Act which may be relevant to applications to academic institutions for information relating to project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 relate to

  Thames Valley Police
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded crimes per 1,000 population there were in each of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in the Thames Valley police area in the last year for which figures are available. [18649]

  Mr. Denham
  Details of recorded crime figures for violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary in a dwelling, theft of a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle are collected centrally for each Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) in England and Wales. The most recent information is available in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin number 12–01, entitled 'Recorded Crime: England and Wales, 12 months to March 2001', published on 19 July 2001. The details for Thames Valley CDRPs are given in the table.

  personal information the disclosure of which would contravene the data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 (section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act); and commercial interests (section 43).

  It is impossible to judge hypothetically what would or would not be disclosed, as all requests under Freedom of Information will be assessed on a case by case basis. But the Government believe that the Act achieves a proper balance between the right to know, the right to privacy and the preservation of confidentiality where disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.

  The timetable for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act was recently announced. Implementation will be in stages with the duties on public authorities to apply Publication Schemes—details of the information they will provide pro-actively—being introduced first. This will be staggered for different parts of the public sector. The individual right of access will follow in January 2005.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to change the(a) resource departmental expenditure limit and (b) administration costs limit for her Department in 2001–02. [19950]

  Clare Short
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the Department for International Development Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2001–02 will be increased from £3,114,570,000 to £3,127,152,749. The Administration Cost Limit will increase from £67,246,000 to £67,561,000. Within this DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the table.

  £

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  12,582,749

  —

  New DEL

  3,127,152,749

  —

  Of which:

  Voted

  2,450,932,749

  —

  Non-voted

  676,220,000

  —

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:

  A transfer of £22,656,813 from DFID's non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) to the Ministry of Defence for Conflict Prevention in sub-Saharan Africa;

  A transfer of £4,435,438 from DFID's non-voted DUP to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for Conflict Prevention in sub-Saharan Africa;

  A transfer of £8,900,000 from the FCO to DFID for Global Conflict Prevention;

  A transfer of £100,000 from DFID's non-voted DUP to the Cabinet Office (SIA) for Conflict Prevention in sub-Saharan Africa;

  A transfer of £15,000,000 from the Reserve in support of a new International Monetary Fund Poverty Reduction Growth Facility for Pakistan;

  A transfer of £15,000,000 from the Reserve in support of humanitarian relief in Afghanistan;

  A transfer of £570,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for a contribution to the refurbishment of BHC Lusaka;

  A transfer of £10,000 to the Home Office for DFID's contribution to the "Groupe d'etats Contre la Corruption" (GRECO);

  A transfer of £510,000 from the Cabinet Office for the Civil Service Modernisation Fund;

  A transfer of £195,000 to the Cabinet Office for funding of Fast Stream Recruitment.

  The increase will be met by inter-departmental transfers or from the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on(a) the progress of the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo, (b) her recent visit to the region and (c) the latest International Crisis Group report on the Inter-Congolese dialogue. [18635]

  Clare Short
  I had a useful visit to the region in August where I met with Presidents Kagame and Museveni, President Kabila and Mr. Bemba, Mr. Onusumba and representatives of MONUC among others to discuss the importance of moving the Lusaka Peace Process forward. These have been some promising signs in recent months with no major ceasefire violations, the start of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue (due to reconvene in the new year), and more frank discussions about disarmament, demobilisation, and re-integration. But the situation remains fragile. The international community needs to give its full support to pushing all the elements of the Lusaka Peace Process forward, including the Inter-Congolese Dialogue.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will respond to the UN report of the Panel of Exports on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in particular section III part D. [18630]

  Clare Short
  We welcome the publication of the revised report last week. We believe it is an improvement on the previous highly flawed report. We shall raise any specific allegations with the Governments concerned and press them to take action to investigate substantiated allegations against groups and individuals. But we also believe that the way forward for the region—including better management of mineral resources—is the full implementation of the Lusaka peace accord.

  Angola
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the sanctions against terrorists in Angola since the publication of the third report of the Monitoring Mechanism on Sanctions against UNITA. [18632]

  Clare Short
  We welcome the Monitoring Mechanism's latest report in October. The report is currently under discussion by the Security Council and we look forward to a timely follow-up.

  The Government fully support the sanctions imposed by UNCSRs 864, 1127, and 1173 as a means of bringing UNITA to the negotiating table. We are currently investigating two UK companies named in the latest report and hope to report back to the Sanctions Committee shortly.

  Malawi
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what actions her Department is taking to promote good governance in Malawi; and what assessment she has made of the decision of major donors to suspend development aid to the country. [18631]
  1131W
  Clare Short
  Malawi is an extremely poor country with very weak capacity in all government systems. We are implementing a £34 million programme aimed at improved safety, security and access to justice for poor and vulnerable people, by strengthening the judiciary and reform of the police and prison services. We are assisting the Anti Corruption Bureau and Ombudsman's office, and we are helping to improve public expenditure management.

  All donors are at present maintaining their programmes in Malawi.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment she has made of the effect of the collapse of Taliban rule on the scale of population displacement in Afghanistan; [17173]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the willingness of the Northern Alliance and other non-Taliban forces (a) to permit and (b) to assist in the distribution of humanitarian aid; [17175]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the continuing need for air drops as a means of supplying emergency food aid to the Afghan people following the collapse of Taliban rule; [17174]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the opportunities to render accelerated humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people as a result of the collapse of Taliban rule. [17172]

  Clare Short
  Where there have been improvements in the security situation, some international staff of humanitarian agencies have returned to Afghanistan, and access to these parts of the country has increased. However, while the changing situation has resulted in some people in the north of the country being able to return to their homes, continued fighting in the south has caused further displacement. Because of ongoing security concerns, access to vulnerable groups in this regions is extremely limited.

  The UN Regional Humanitarian Coordinator met with the leadership of the United Front-led Government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan on 20 November in Kabul. The UN has received assurances from the leadership that they will help to ensure the safety and security of UN national and international staff. Improved security is key to enhancing the ability of humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance to those in need. We, and the rest of the international community, will continue to urge the authorities in Afghanistan to assist with the relief effort, and to help stabilise the environment in which the humanitarian community are trying to operate.

  Efforts are under way to maximise the delivery of assistance into Afghanistan, especially in the worst affected areas of the North. The World Food Programme is working to maximise the delivery of food by road, including in areas of Afghanistan worst affected by winter. WFP has launched its first airbridge from Tajikistan to Faizabad in Northern Afghanistan. Four flights a day are planned to use this route over the next few weeks, despatching a total of
  1132W
  2,000 tons of food, Airdrops are still being seriously considered as a fall-back measures. WFP, with assistance from my Department, are well advanced with contingency plans for air drops using identified drop zones. Again, this is heavily dependant on security considerations.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the value of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in her Department in each of the last five years. [17554]

  Clare Short
  Fairtrade coffee was introduced in our East Kilbride office in September 1999 and in London in June 1998. In East Kilbride, no tea is sold, but the value for coffee is:

  September 1999–December 2000: £1,925

  2001: £10,150.

  In London, in 1998 and 1999 coffee was served at hospitality functions only. Tea was introduced in 2000, and both tea and coffee were offered for general sale from January 2000. Figures are:

  1998: Coffee £1,245

  1990: Coffee £2,004

  2000: Coffee £4,185. Tea £320

  2001: Coffee £4,868. Tea £310.

  Ministerial Visits
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the developing countries visited by her Under-Secretary of State for International Development in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and countries expected to be visited in (f) 2002, (g) 2003 and (h) 2004. [16639]

  Clare Short
  The Under-Secretary of State for International Development visited:

  South Africa. Montserrat and Ukraine in 1997

  Colombia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Russia, Brazil, Fiji, West Bank and Gaza, Jordan and South Africa in 1998.

  Montserrat, Egypt, Central America. Palau, Cambodia, Poland and South Africa in 1999.

  Romania, Moldova, Kosovo and Kazakhstan in 2000.

  Kyrgyzstan, Albania, Indonesia and Malawi in 2001.

  The Under-Secretary of State plans to visit Ukraine in December 2001 and Bangladesh in the first quarter of 2002. No visits have been planned beyond this.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) Order in Council. [13817]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 748W.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Disability Access
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he is taking to improve disability access to courts in England and Wales; and what financial resources are being made available for this purpose. [19289]

  Mr. Wills
  At the end of 1997 the Court Service commissioned the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR) to devise a methodology to enable it to conduct disability access audits of all its courts and offices. It involved Court Service personnel who had been trained in the process visiting every building on the estate to identify where they failed to meet the standards required and what remedial work would be required.

  On this basis, a three year programme of works was devised (starting in 2001–02) to enable works to be completed well in advance on the 1 October 2004 Disability Discrimination Act 1995 deadline for physical improvements. £5 million has been set aside for this year and targeted on the principal court centres across the estate.

  Under the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, the provision and improvement of magistrates courthouse accommodation is a matter for each Magistrates Courts Committee (MCC) to determine, in consultation with the local paying authority or authorities. Since 2000, the Department has provided £2.5 million to enable MCCs to improve facilities for the disabled in magistrates courts across England and Wales. Officials will shortly be assessing the 2002–03 bids received from MCCs for further improvement works.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice his Department has given to court staff on assisting disabled people attending court. [19287]

  Mr. Wills
  Every public office has a Customer Service Officer whose training includes considering the needs of disabled customers. To support that service, in October 1999 every member of Court Service staff was given a booklet containing guidance on assisting disabled customers. The booklet suggests ways of helping people with a range of disabilities. It also outlines arrangements for provision of assistance such as large print leaflets and communication support for deaf people. All relevant Court Service training events cover disability issues. A liaison officer is available at Court Service Headquarters to assist with disability issues.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what cover is provided to court employees by court service insurance policies when dealing with people with disabilities. [19290]

  Mr. Wills
  The Court Service does not provide any insurance cover for its employees.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, which court buildings in England and Wales have been assessed as disability-friendly. [19288]
  1134W
  Mr. Wills
  I am advised that there is no definition within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 of 'disability-friendliness' against which to make such as assessment.

  However, in so far as Part M of the Building Regulations 1991 require the design of new and refurbished buildings to enable disabled people to gain independent access into and within the building, all new court builds and major court refurbishments completed since 1992 could be said to be 'disabled-friendly'. It is not possible, in the time available, to provide specific details.

  I would also refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply, which sets out the steps which my Department is taking to improve disabled facilities in courts by the 1 October 2001 deadline set by the DDA.

  Court Service
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when he will publish the Court Service annual report for 2000–01. [20020]

  Mr. Wills
  The Court Service annual report for 2000–01 has been published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to amend the Lord Chancellor's Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit and Running Costs Limits for 2001–02. [20019]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Request for Resources 1, the Lord Chancellor's Department Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2001–02 will be increased by £22,034,000 from £2,732,900,000 to £2,754,934,000. The increase is the net effect of take up of End Year Flexibility entitlement of: £9,000,000 in respect of Capital Modernisation Fund; £1,031,000 in respect of DEL capital expenditure; £1,355,000 in respect of an award from the Invest to Modernise Fund; £408,000 in respect of the Invest to Save Budget; awards from the Capital Modernisation Fund totalling £1,888,000 in respect of new projects and £1,174,000 from the Invest to Modernise Fund; transfers in respect of transfers of business from the Home Office in the sum of £614,000; from the Department for Work and Pensions in the sum of £20,000; from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the sum of £100,000 and from the Ministry of Defence in the sum of £176,000. Transfers of business arising from the Machinery of Government changes of £406,000 from Cabinet Office and £5,862,000 from Home Office are also included in this supplementary estimate.

  The Administration cost limit for the Lord Chancellor's Department Request for Resources 1 will be increased by £5,344,000 from £612,786,000 to £618,130,000. The increase is caused by take up of End Year Flexibility entitlement of £1,355,000; an award of £1,174,000 from the Invest to Modernise fund; Transfers in respect of transfers of business from the Home Office in the sum of £480,000; from the Ministry of Defence in the sum of £176,000; from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the sum of £100,000 and to the Department for Work and Pensions in the sum

  1135W
  of £200,000. Transfers of business arising from the Machinery of Government changes of £406,000 from Cabinet Office and £1,853,000 from Home Office are also included in this supplementary estimate.

  The increases will be offset by transfers from the Departmental Expenditure Limits of the Home Office, Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Local Government, Transport and the Regions, and the Ministry of Defence, take-up of End Year Flexibility entitlement, an award from the Invest to Modernise Fund and awards from the Capital Modernisation Fund and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Freedom of Information
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will report to Parliament his proposals for bringing fully into force those provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which are not yet in force. [20018]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor has today laid a Report on the Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 before both Houses. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Judges' Accommodation
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the(a) units of residential accommodation owned or rented by the Lord Chancellor's Department for occupation by judges on circuit, (b) accumulative capital value of the same when last valued, (c) the running costs of maintaining the same for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000 and (d) the number of judges accommodated in the same for each of the above years and the number of nights they were so accommodated. [18629]

  Mr. Wills
  A list of the units of residential accommodation owned or rented by the Lord Chancellor's Department for occupation by judges on circuit is contained in table 4.

  The Capital Value of the Freehold Lodging Estate was £10.84 million as at June 2000.

  The total cost of running the judges' lodgings during the three years in question was:

  Table 1

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  4,776,684.08

  1998–99

  5,232,956.97

  1999–2000

  4,785,683.07

  The number of High Court judges accommodated in the lodgings over the three years in question was:

  Table 2

  Year

  Number of judges accommodated

  1997–98

  84

  1998–99

  81

  1999–2000

  88

  1136W
  The number of nights judges were accommodated in the lodgings over the three years in question was:

  Table 3

  Year

  Number of judges accommodated

  1997–98

  6,143

  1998–99

  6,185

  1999–2000

  6,116

  Table 4

  Property—Judges' Lodgings

  Property tenure

  Birmingham

  Leasehold

  Bristol

  Leasehold

  Caernarfon

  Hiring

  Cardiff

  Freehold

  Carlisle

  Hiring

  Chelmsford

  Leasehold

  Chester

  Freehold

  Exeter

  Hiring

  Leeds

  Leasehold

  Leicester

  Hiring

  Lewes

  Leasehold

  Lincoln

  Hiring

  Liverpool

  Leasehold

  Maidstone

  Freehold

  Manchester

  Freehold

  Mold

  Leasehold

  Northampton

  Hiring

  Norwich

  Freehold

  Nottingham

  Freehold

  Oxford

  Leasehold

  Plawsworth

  Freehold

  Plymouth

  Hiring

  Preston

  Freehold

  Reading

  Freehold

  St. Albans

  Freehold

  Sheffield

  Freehold

  Stafford

  Hiring

  Swansea

  Freehold

  Truro

  Hiring

  Warwick

  Hiring

  Winchester

  Leasehold

  Worcester

  Hiring

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Analytical Job Evaluation Schemes
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of the work force is covered by analytical job evaluation schemes. [18306]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No systematic data are collected on the prevalence of job evaluation schemes across the economy. Job evaluation schemes tend to be used by large private sector employers and by many parts of the public sector.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants of attendance allowance there are broken down by each nation and region as at the
  1137W
  most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will estimate the extent of underclaiming of attendance allowance. [12647]

  Maria Eagle
  The latest available information on the number of people receiving attendance allowance is in the table.

  People in receipt of attendance allowance at 31 May 2001

  Country and Government Office Region

  People in receipt

  Great Britain

  1,290,000

  England

  1,064,500

  North East

  62,800

  North West

  178,700

  Yorkshire and Humber

  112,100

  East Midlands

  97,300

  West Midlands

  134,500

  East

  112,100

  London

  112,500

  South East

  130,600

  South West

  123,900

  Wales

  95,800

  Scotland

  129,700

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Estimates of the amount of underclaimed attendance are not routinely made.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents on income support have been subjected to a sanction because they have failed to attend a personal adviser interview. [7908]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents have had income support reduced as a sanction under the new deal for lone parents; and what provision is made for sanctions to be applied in the case of lone parents who attend interviews but decline to co-operate in the process of looking for work. [9678]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Sanctions are not applied under the new deal for lone parents as it is a voluntary programme. However, since April 2001, lone parents with a youngest child of school age (at least five years and three months old) have been asked to take part in a meeting with a personal adviser to discuss the range of help available to move into work when they make a claim for income support.

  Lone parents currently claiming income support are being invited to a compulsory personal adviser meeting, on a rolling programme, starting this year with those with a youngest child of 13 to 15 years.

  If lone parents currently claiming income support fail to attend a compulsory personal adviser meeting their benefit is sanctioned. This has happened in 362 cases up to 26 October. If the lone parent subsequently participates in a personal adviser meeting then the sanction is lifted. Lone parents are not required to take further action beyond participating in a personal adviser meeting.

  ONE Service
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that personal advisers in the ONE programme are adequately trained in work-focused initiatives. [11924]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There is a Learning and Assessment Framework (LAF) in place for the ONE pilots, which supports the structured training and development of the staff performing various roles in ONE offices. As part of this, all personal advisers undertake an assessment of knowledge and skills required to carry out their job. This self-assessment covers all areas of their work as advisers, including competence in conducting work-focused interviews. Where training needs are identified, the LAF provides information on the various learning tools available through ONE Training Team, Benefits Agency and Employment Service Regional Training Centres. To meet their training needs attendance on a course or open learning may be appropriate, or they may arrange to meet with local voluntary organisations to widen their knowledge and understanding of clients with special needs. Regular reviews of the progress made towards meeting identified learning needs is an integral part of the staff performance and appraisal system.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for work and Pensions what his policy is on the provision of separate information on the outcome of participation in ONE by people with mental illnesses; and if he will make a statement. [7989]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Results from the ONE evaluation about the experiences of sick or disabled people, including those with mental illness, have been published in the Department's Research Series (numbers 126, 139, 140, 149 and 150) and In-house report number 84.

  Sick or disabled clients, including those with mental illness, have generally viewed the ONE service positively. When personal advisers have tailored their help to clients' circumstances, their advice and guidance has been well received.

  The ONE client survey examines experiences of and outcomes from ONE for different groups of clients. Information on clients' individual characteristics, including the nature of their health problems, was also collected. Where differences between the experiences of clients with mental illnesses compared with sick or disabled clients as a whole are identified, these will be reported. The first survey information relating to clients with mental illnesses should be published later this year.

  Teenage Parents (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assistance is available to teenage parents in the Jarrow constituency to get(a) work, (b) education and (c) training. [9106]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Teenage parents aged 18 or over are able to take full advantage of new deal for young people, which offers tailored help in finding work or suitable training, and improving prospects of remaining in sustained employment.

  Teenage lone parents in receipt of income support can choose to join the new deal for lone parents, which offers a package of advice and support, including information

  1139W
  on training opportunities, employment, in-work benefits, and child care arrangements. An in-work support service is also provided to help lone parents make the transition into employment.

  Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to make further announcements about the structure and scope of the job retention and rehabilitation pilots; and if he will make a statement. [17259]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The aim of the job retention and rehabilitation pilot is to provide robust evidence about the overall impact of job retention and rehabilitation services and their cost effectiveness, and the relative impact of three intervention strategies ("boosting" help in the workplace; in health care services; and both in the workplace and through health care).

  The feasibility of delivering this in practice through a "live" service to clients is currently being assessed through the three month "Feasibility Phase" of the pilot which is due to end on 18 January 2002. Nine prospective delivery organisations are being supported to fully develop, cost and submit proposals for service delivery that are fully consistent with evaluation requirements. The evaluator contracted for the feasibility phase, the National Centre for Social Research, will report on the feasibility of the pilot as a whole in the context of service delivery bids submitted to the Department.

  We would expect to make an announcement on the future of the pilot, its structure and scope, after we have fully considered the outcome of the feasibility phase.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what is the value of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in his Department in each of the last five years; [17568]

  (2) what fairly traded products, other than tea and coffee, have been purchased by his Department in each of the last five years; and what was their value. [17569]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information on expenditure on fairly traded products is not available and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. The majority of fair trade goods are obtained by outsourced services, eg catering. Civil servants buy a coffee or tea of their choice for their own consumption.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list those public bodies to which his Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17707]

  (2) if he will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of his Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17708]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Public Bodies 2000 sets out information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and NHS bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal 1140W
  NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition will be published around the end of the year. Information about task forces, annual reports, and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in an annual report published by Cabinet Office. Copies of Public Bodies 2000 are in the Library of the House and this publication may be accessed via Cabinet Office's website http:// www.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/pb00/ pb00.htm. Copies of the annual report on task forces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library of the House and the annual report is being made available on Cabinet Office's website.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appoints members and is responsible for the following public bodies which do not appear in the Public Bodies 2000 publication: Disability Rights Commission (DRC), Independent Living Fund (ILF), Independent Review Service (IRS), Social Fund Commissioner (IRS for the Social Fund) and the].0th Anniversary Trust.

  Responsibility for the Appeals Service and Motability lie with the Department for Work and Pensions although my right hon. Friend does not appoint members, the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) makes appointments for the Appeals Service and Motability board members are drawn from finance, industry, the professions, trade unions and voluntary organisations.

  Local Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of his Department and its predecessors since May 1997. [17709]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training (ACDET), the Disability Rights Commission (DRC), Race Education and Employment Forum (REEF) and the Appeals Service (TAS) are those bodies set up since May 1997 and are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. ACDET was set up in June 1998, REEF on 16 November 1999, and DRC and TAS in April 2000.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what were the gross costs of the Regulatory Impact Assessment for(a) the Social Security Benefit Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000 and (b) the Social Security Fraud Bill (revised). [17750]

  Mr. McCartney
  These costs are shown in the published regulatory impact assessments which are available in the Library.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many older people will receive winter fuel payments this winter in Tynemouth constituency. [17994]

  Mr. McCartney
  Last winter, around 19,300 people aged 60 and over in Tynemouth constituency received a winter fuel payment. The figure for this year will be similar.
  1141W
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many older people will receive winter fuel payments this winter in the Loughborough constituency; what plans he has to extend winter fuel payments to other groups in receipt of benefits; and if he will make a statement. [18473]

  Mr. McCartney
  Last winter, around 15,000 people aged 60 and over in the Loughborough constituency received a winter fuel payment. The figure for this year will be similar. There are no plans to change the existing regulations.

  Pensions Service
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many local advisers will be assigned to each local office of the new Pensions Service; what its total staffing complement will be; and if he will make a statement on plans to offer claimants a personal interview if requested. [18026]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The Pension Service will provide a customer-focused service dedicated to the needs of today's and future pensioners. It will be modern and efficient, and accessible by telephone, post, in time the internet and locally where pensioners need to do so. It will work to join up services for pensioners both locally and nationally and will build on existing best practice.

  There will be a local service in each area offering a face to face service for those customers who need it. In addition the local service will work with other locally based organisations to provide information on the full range of local services of interest to pensioners through outreach and visiting activity. The design and size of the local service is currently being planned.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) record is kept and (b) assessment made of the destinations of people who leave the new deal for lone parents for employment. [18055]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Records of the destination of people leaving the new deal for lone parents are published monthly in the Statistical First Release, which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment his Department has made on the effectiveness of the new deal for lone parents in south Tyneside. [17404]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are giving lone parents more choices and more help than ever before to move off welfare and into work. The new deal for lone parents is a key part of this range of support and has helped over 100,000 lone parents to find work.

  By the end of August, 2,116 lone parents had joined the new deal for lone parents in the Gateshead and south Tyneside district. 301 of these lone parents have taken up education or training opportunities and 1,064 have moved into work.
  1142W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of those on the new deal for lone parents left for employment in the last 12 months, broken down by region. [9641]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Across Great Britain 56 per cent. of those leaving the new deal for lone parents left for employment during the last 12 months.

  A regional break down is provided in the table.

  Proportion of people leaving new deal for lone employment, August 2000–July 2001

  Employment service region

  Percentage

  Scotland

  62

  Wales

  63

  Northern

  60

  North West

  57

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  66

  West Midlands

  52

  East Midlands and Eastern

  59

  South West

  58

  London and South East

  46

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effects of the new deal for lone parents on levels of employment and benefit take-up among lone parents. [9680]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The following reports have been commissioned but have not yet been published:

  Date expected

  Title

  Spring 2002

  Synthesis Report 2002

  Spring 2003

  Quantitative Survey of Lone Parents

  The following reports have already been published:

  Date

  Title

  June 2000

  The New Deal for Lone Parents: A Review of Evaluation Evidence

  April 2001

  Jobfinders Grant: Research amongst lone parents

  August 2001

  New Deal for Lone Parents: An Evaluation of the Innovative Pilots

  October 2001

  NDLP Evaluation: A Quantitative Survey of Lone Parents on Income Support

  The Statistical First Release, published monthly with information from the NDLP database, also includes useful information.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have entered the new deal gateway(a) once, (b) twice and (c) three times or more in respect of the (i) new deal for lone parents, (ii) new deal for young people, (iii) new deal for the over 25s, (iv) new deal for the over 50s and (v) new deal for disabled people. [11593]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  At August 2001, 697,400 people had entered the new deal for young people programme. Of these 100,200 clients have entered the programme twice and 9,100 have entered three or more times.
  1143W
  At August 2001, 355,400 people had entered the pre-April 2001 new deal 25 plus programme. Of these 65,150 clients have entered the programme twice and 11,150 have entered three or more times.

  Information is not available on the number of people re-entering the new deal for lone parents, the new deal for disabled people or new deal 50 plus.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the impact of the new deal for the over 50s on levels of employment and benefit take-up among the over 50s. [11594]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Although there has been a considerable amount of research into benefit take-up by pensioners, there is none which has been specifically targeted at the over 50s.

  Research of new deal 50 plus has been commissioned. The research reports (with dates where published) are:

  Evaluation of new deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from clients: first phase—July 2000

  Evaluation of new deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from ES and BA staff: first phase—August 2000

  Evaluation of new deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from ES and BA staff: second phase—March 2001

  Evaluation of new deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from clients: second phase—March 2001

  Evaluation of new deal 50 plus: Research with Individuals (Wave 1)—September 2001

  Evaluation of new deal 50 plus: Research with Individuals (Wave 2)—September 2001

  Evaluation of new deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from clients: third phase—November 2001

  Evaluation of new deal 50 plus: Summary Report.

  Copies of the published reports can be found in the Library.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants in the new deal have received(a) training and (b) subsidised employment in the construction industry in each year since 1997. [11600]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We estimate that since April 1998 about 12 per cent. of subsidised employment starts in the new deal for young people have been in the construction industry. All subsidised employment participants receive training. Construction training can also be accessed through the further education and training option.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) male and (b) female members of each ethnic group have participated in the new deal from the Wycombe constituency since it was set up. [14868]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Figures are not available for the new deal for disabled people and the new deal for partners. Due to the small volumes involved, figures for the other new deals broken down by ethnic group are not published at constituency level because of the risk of identifying individuals.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets he has set in respect of the new deal for the over 50s in the next 12 months. [15836]
  1144W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New deal 50 plus forms part of the A2 annual performance agreement (APA) target, which aims to get 410,000 people into work in 2001–02. The A2 target also includes the new deal for young people, new deal 25 plus, employment zones, jobseeker's allowance long-term unemployed and people with disabilities not counted under other APA targets.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants in the new deal for 50 plus received training grants in each of the last 12 months. [15843]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Month

  Numbers claiming the new deal 50 plus training grant

  October 2000

  112

  November 2000

  120

  December 2000

  124

  January 2001

  133

  February 2001

  140

  March 2001

  189

  April 2001

  150

  May 2001

  183

  June 2001

  166

  July 2001

  155

  August 2001

  180

  September 2001

  158

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the implementation of the new deal 50 plus in Coventry. [16270]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New deal 50 plus has been operating nationally since April 2000. In the first 18 months of national operation over 51,000 people have been helped into work, including 350 people in Coventry.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 160W, which Government Departments have taken on staff through the new deal programme since its inception. [18058]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on 28 November 2001, Official Report, column 901W.

  Mr. Clappison:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 160W, how many participants in (a) the new deal for young people and (b) the new deal for the long-term unemployed have entered (i) employment and (ii) sustained employment lasting more than 13 weeks in Government Departments in each year since 1997, broken down by each Department. [18059]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions further to his answer of 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 195W, on industrial injuries disablement benefit, for what reason information is not available on claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit which have been refused as a result of the applicant's condition being caused through work processes and not as a result of accident or prescribed disease. [18928]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In general we do not keep records of the reasons for disallowing claims for benefit where to do so would serve no purpose. If, in the course of reviewing scientific and medical developments, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommends changes to the way conditions caused by work processes are dealt with under the industrial injuries scheme, we will consider those recommendations and monitor the number of cases affected.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received from training providers affected by the closure of the ILA scheme for an introduction of another scheme; and if she will make a statement. [17297]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: We have received representations from a number of Individual Learning Account (ILA) registered providers expressing disappointment about the withdrawal of the programme. Many have also offered their help in the development of our future plans. We welcome their offers and will take advantage of their experience. I hope to announce more details on the process for developing a further scheme in due course.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people were under investigation in relation to individual learning accounts(a) before 30 October and (b) at the latest available date. [19323]

  John Healey
  Before 30 October 2001 29 cases had been taken up for investigation by the Department's Special Investigations Unit. As at 27 November 2001 this had increased to 60 cases. The police are currently involved in five cases.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether she consulted training providers before bringing forward the suspension of the Individual Learning Account scheme; and if she will make a statement. [19325]

  John Healey
  Because of the need to take immediate action it was not possible to consult training providers. The Department for Education and Skills called in police to investigate new allegations of fraud and theft involving Individual Learning Accounts. Officers from the Department's Special Investigations Unit had confirmed the allegations on Thursday 22 November. With the 1146W
  advice of the police and to prevent serious risk to public funds, the ILA programme was shut down on Friday 23 November.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what considerations informed her decision 10 bring forward the suspension date for individual learning accounts. [19326]

  John Healey
  The Department for Education and Skills called in police to investigate new allegations of fraud and theft involving individual learning accounts. Officers from the Department's Special Investigations Unit were alerted to those allegations on Wednesday 21 November and confirmed them on Thursday 22 November. With the advice of the police and to prevent a serious risk to public funds, the ILA programme was shut down on Friday 23 November.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints had been received in relation to the operation of individual learning accounts(a) before 30 October and (b) at the latest available date. [19324]

  John Healey
  Up to 31 October 2001 there had been 8,448 (0.33 per cent.) complaints received concerning the operation of individual learning accounts. As at 19 November 2001 the number of complaints had increased to 10,276 (0.41 per cent.). Just over a quarter of complaints have raised questions about non-compliance of learning providers with the rules of the ILA scheme.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the public expenditure consequences of the operations of the individual learning account scheme between 30 October and 23 November. [19327]

  John Healey
  We cannot give a figure for expenditure between 30 October and 23 November.

  There are still significant numbers of payments due in respect of claims already made by learning providers and committed expenditure in respect of learning already booked by providers on the ILA Centre system before it was shut down on 23 November. Because of the police investigation into allegations of fraud and abuse we do not, currently, have access to Capita's ILA Centre system on which the data are stored. We also need to validate both the claims and the bookings held on the ILA Centre system and take action to recoup moneys which have been improperly claimed. As a result it is not possible to estimate the extent of the additional financial commitment at present.

  FE Course Costs
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made for the current financial year of the average cost per student following a two-year curriculum 2000 programme in(a) a school sixth form, (b) a sixth form college and (c) a tertiary college. [18348]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The department does not publish the average cost per student of a two-year Curriculum 2000 programme. However, the latest estimate of the average delegated funding per sixth form student in schools per year for 2001–02 is £3,330. The total funding per full time equivalent student in FE sector colleges per year in
  1147W
  2001–02 is £3,660. Separate figures for sixth form colleges and tertiary colleges are not available. It should be noted that the two unit funding figures quoted are not directly comparable, as the FE unit funding includes total public funding allocated for further education, while the schools' figure is based only on delegated funds and excludes other funding which the school receives centrally from LEAs which impact on post-16 students.

  Class Sizes (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average secondary school class size was in(a) the County of Somerset and (b) the constituency of Yeovil in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999, (v) 2000 and (vi) 2001; and if she will make a statement. [18373]
  1148W
  Mr. Timms
  The available information is shown in the following table.

  Average class sizes in maintained secondary schools: Classes taught by one teacher

  January each year

  Somerset LEA

  Yeovil parliamentary constituency

  1996

  23.2

  23.9

  1997

  23.2

  23.2

  1998

  23.9

  24.2

  1999

  23.9

  24.1

  2000

  23.6

  24.8

  2001

  23.9

  1—

  1 Not available

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Higher Education: Funding
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Hannay of Chiswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How universities can contribute effectively to their review of public spending in higher education without knowing the outcome of their review of student finance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, there are always uncertainties in public spending rounds. Universities must make the best case that they can on the information that is available to them. But they can rest assured that the Government are alive to the links between student finance and institutional funding and will consult widely with them.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I declare again my interest as pro-chancellor of the University of Birmingham. Is she aware that an income stream of £350 million a year is involved in the issue of student finance? How can universities participate effectively in the consultative process on the spending round if they do not know whether or not the funding is there for the future?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am aware of the funding stream. The estimate at the moment is £343 million. It will be for the Government to ensure in their proposals that they have demonstrated the link between that figure and the needs of universities. There is an understanding in the department of the importance of this income stream. The current review will be alive to that and will take it into account.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the noble Baroness suggesting that in the Chancellor's recent Pre-Budget Statement there is an open-ended commitment to whatever is the outcome of the review, or have parameters been set down within which the review has to report? What input have the universities had to date with officials in that review process?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, the review will continue until next year. It is important to ensure that the review works closely with all interested parties in determining what amounts of money are available to it. I am not
448
aware of parameters as such, but of course officials within the department work closely at all times with other officials in government, not least with the Treasury.
As to whether universities have worked with the Government on the issue of the review, Universities UK and other organisations have had meetings with officials and have made representations. As noble Lords will be aware, when the review is ready to report it will consult widely with the universities and there will be many opportunities at that stage.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I agree that this is a very important stream of funding for universities. But is the Minister aware that the extra income yielded by the imposition of tuition fees resulted in no net increase of resources to universities because of cuts elsewhere? Can we therefore believe the Government when they say that they will consider such an income stream? Is it not irrelevant now? Is not what we want a real promise from the Treasury that there will be a net increase in resources for universities in the next spending round?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was searching for an assurance that the Government are aware of the £343 million and its relationship to the overall strategy that universities are pursuing in terms of their funding. I believe that I have given that assurance. I am sure that noble Lords will come back to me if I have not.
The noble Baroness asks about overall funding for universities. It is very important that universities put forward their views and proposals for the spending review and that they are evidence based.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that English professors earn so much less than their contemporaries in other parts of the world? In consequence, they go to other countries. In the funding review will the Government bear in mind that £46,000 a year is not enough for the Regius Professor of History at Cambridge?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the issue of payments to professors and other teachers—however one wishes to describe them—is very important. I am fully alive to the issue in terms of ensuring that we continue to have lecturers, professors and other staff of the highest quality in our universities.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will implement all the proposals of the Bett report and that they will be properly funded?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not in a position to do that. It is very important for the Government to consider all the proposals and to put

449
forward recommendations, proposals and so on to universities, so that we can move forward on student finance and funding in a coherent way.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the Government's top priority in higher education is increased access to it?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is an important aspect of the Government's priorities. If I said that it is a top priority other noble Lords might say that the top priority should be ensuring that our universities are funded and we could be here potentially for some time. It is important that we widen access. Every noble Lord who has ever spoken on the subject agrees with that. We want to see the maximum participation for those for whom it is the appropriate pathway.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, would I be right in assuming from the reply given to my noble friend Lord Pilkington that the Government do not intend to do anything about the salaries of senior professors?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord would not be right in assuming that. I am simply trying to ensure that when the review reports and when the comprehensive funding review reports, all the factors that noble Lords have raised will be taken into account and that there will be opportunity to consider these issues. Of course they are important. I would not suggest for one moment that they are not.

London: Emergency Response Co-ordination
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who is responsible for considering the possible consequences of major emergencies or acts of terrorism within London and for preparing plans to respond to such events.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the London Resilience Sub-Committee of the Civil Contingencies Committee is chaired by the Minister for London. It is engaging all the capital's responsible organisations in a comprehensive review of their plans to respond to and manage the consequences of such events.
Operationally, the co-ordination of any response to a major incident in London is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Service.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that inevitably in a conurbation there are many bodies and organisations which properly have a role to play in the preparation of an emergency plan to deal with a major disaster? Can he tell me how all these plans are co-ordinated? The House will be all too
450
familiar with the cliché of the committee that was asked to design a racehorse but which came up with a camel. Is there one man somewhere with absolute responsibility to pull all the plans together and present a unified course of action to the committee that he has just mentioned, as there is in most other parts of the country?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have nothing different to say from the two previous occasions when I answered exactly the same issue in a Question on the 5th and on a Motion on the 7th of this month. The Civil Contingencies Committee is chaired by the Home Secretary. It has three sub-committees: the London Resilience Sub-Committee, the UK Resilience Sub-Committee and a sub-committee that deals with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear issues which is also chaired by a Home Office Minister.
From an operational point of view, the Metropolitan Police are in charge. There is good co-ordination. All this is being reviewed and has been reviewed constantly since September 11th. There are operational exercises. They were taking place before September 11th. The role of the Mayor for London is to inform Londoners of the issues, which he is doing. He works in co-operation with the London Resilience Sub-Committee. We are satisfied with the arrangements but we are constantly reviewing them. Nothing is perfect. That is why they are being constantly reviewed.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I know that the Minister is aware, because he has told us before, that most of the actual emergency planning in London since 1973 has been done by the London Emergency Services Liaison Panel, known as LESLP to its friends. As part of the Government's review of the arrangements, are they considering putting LESLP on a more sound basis than at present in terms of both its organisation and its funding? At present, it relies largely on the good will of the organisations involved.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I know of no problems in that respect. The London Emergency Services Liaison Panel—I shall not try to pronounce the acronym—includes the Metropolitan Police, the City of London Police, the British Transport Police, the fire brigade and the ambulance service. It has produced plans to deal with some potentially serious issues: chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear hazards. It has issued guidance to local authorities and emergency planning officers. A sub-committee of the Cabinet Civil Contingencies Committee also deals with the issue.
Resources will always be an issue because many organisations with their own budgets are involved, but they are working to a central aim and are co-ordinated from the centre. The Government are in charge of ensuring that co-ordination.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, did the Minister have a chance to see the recent television programme on transporting nuclear waste from Essex

451
power stations through north London for reprocessing elsewhere? The programme revealed that, although the train is monitored extremely carefully while in progress, it is subsequently parked at Willesden Green sidings for two to three hours—and sometimes overnight—completely unguarded. Is that state of affairs satisfactory?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, it is not. I did not see the programme, but I trust that the noble Lord will be in the Lobby next week, if need be, to vote for the minor technical change made to the UK Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, to ensure that that issue is dealt with.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, as someone who was once Home Secretary, I should be interested to know who—if any—is the particular Minister responsible for overseeing the co-ordination to which the Minister referred a few moments ago.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord did as Home Secretary. The Minister responsible is the Home Secretary. David Blunkett chairs the Cabinet Civil Contingencies Committee, which plays the central co-ordinating role.

National Road Safety Strategy
3.12 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as the new president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
The Question was as follows:
When Her Majesty's Government expect to make a statement on the implementation of the national road safety strategy.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government's road safety strategy sets challenging targets for massive reductions in road deaths and serious injuries by 2010. Regular reports are posted on the department's website. The latest, for the period ending September 2001, has now been published.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that on page 31 of the strategy document, it states:
"if we fail to persuade drivers not to use mobile phones while driving, we will review the case for taking specific legislation"?
How long will it take for the Government to be persuaded? If any of your Lordships go into Parliament Square they will see scores of drivers with one hand pressing a phone to their ear and the other attempting to control a motor vehicle. Given that a Private Member's Bill in another place deals
452
specifically with the subject, would not the simplest thing be for the Government to take it over and get it passed quickly?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall start by setting out the clear target that the Government have set themselves by 2010, which is to reduce road deaths by 1,500 lives a year and serious injuries as a result of road accidents by 15,000.
The Government are therefore making judgments about the best way to achieve those remarkably serious targets. The evidence so far—supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers—is that existing road traffic legislation is adequate and provides sufficient powers for the police to deal with offences in that respect. They have power to prosecute for improper control of a vehicle.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former president of RoSPA, and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to his new position. Will the Minister seriously rethink that judgment? Evidence from coroners' inquests and police investigations shows that the use of handheld mobile phones causes fatal accidents.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government's position is quite clear: the use of mobile phones in cars should not take place. It is inadvisable and drivers would do much better to desist. The same goes for hands-free use: that potentially distracts the driver from the road traffic situation. However, enforcement of a ban would not be simple, especially as people could easily switch to hands-free devices, for which there is still evidence of risk. The police can prosecute if there is an accident or if they believe that there is danger to the control of a vehicle.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I recognise his Answer on the adequacy of existing powers, having given it myself some years ago? Is he comfortable with the present degree of enforcement? Many of us share the concerns that have been expressed about the dangers inherent in such practice, and the legislative cover does not seem to be stopping it.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, noble Lords will be deeply surprised to learn that the Home Office figures are not disaggregated in that respect, so we do not know exactly what are the figures for prosecutions, although the matter will be kept under review.
We must consider the matter in the context of my original Answer. Our commitment to reduce deaths and serious injuries is strong. There is a widespread programme of action to achieve that, which I shall not bore the House by describing now. People are clearly advised not to use mobile phones. They will be prosecuted if by doing so they appear to cause an accident. But there are many other actions that, on the evidence before the Government, will lead to significantly greater reductions in deaths and serious injuries.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, the Government's road safety strategy highlights the fact that single-carriageway rural roads are the most dangerous class of highway in the country. In the light of that, what progress are the Government making to implement the review of rural speed limits promised in the Transport Act 2000? It is now almost a year since that Act was passed, and people are dying in numbers that would simply not be tolerated from any other cause.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Transport Act 2000 committed the Government to consider the development of rural road hierarchies for speed management purposes. If I recollect correctly, the noble Baroness had some part in that Act.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State laid before both Houses the report of an independent working group established to consider the practicability of differential speed limits throughout rural areas. The Government will be considering the implications, practicability and cost of such a scheme during the coming months.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, may I encourage my noble friend to improve his background reading on the subject of hand-held telephones by reading the Private Member's Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Davies? If he read the debate on that Bill, when an excellent case was made in this House that was warmly regarded, he might have some stronger words to encourage the Home Office to produce better briefing for Answers in future.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's advice on this occasion—as I am sure I will be in future. There is a danger of my being boring by repeating what I said earlier.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I was confident that the House would agree with me on that. The point about statistics for prosecutions is noted, but whatever the figure, we are still left with the challenge of whether a ban is the priority—whether it is effectively enforceable or whether we would just feel better by passing legislation. Legislation is usually relatively easy to pass—if not this week—but the Government must consider whether it will be efficacious.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is the odious habit conducted at present—certainly by Westminster City Council—of finding every side road, digging it up at great expense and putting a huge great hump in it, supposed to be helpful in reducing road accidents? If so, will the Minister consider that it is greatly to the detriment of those travelling in and driving cars?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I must declare two interests as a resident of Westminster and having the privilege of being a neighbour of the noble Earl. At times, I share his frustrations, but I shall be careful what I say from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Thames Valley Police Authority
454
recently introduced a scheme offering a reward of up to £500 to people who are prepared to inform on relatives, neighbours and friends who drink and drive? Is he in favour of that scheme and is it likely to be extended? How can confidentiality be assured in such circumstances, because if it is not I can see a great deal of fighting going on in streets and homes?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, as a resident of Berkshire, makes an interesting point. It is clearly an operational matter for the Chief Constable. The Government's commitment is to continue the reduction in cases of drink driving which has been experienced during recent years. As noble Lords will know, the number of cases has declined from some 30,000 to some 18,000 in the current year.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if British drivers stuck to the speed limit as it appears in the middle or at the end of a road, there would be no need for humps and bumps in the road and there would be a great reduction in local authority expenditure on roads and bumps?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree that if that were the case we would have a significant reduction in the number of road humps and in deaths—but we would probably already be in paradise if those circumstances had come about. To be serious about the issue, some 1,100 deaths and 12,000 serious injuries each year are predominantly associated with excessive speed. One hopes that in time we shall reach the situation that has occurred in relation to drink driving; that speeding is no longer seen as socially acceptable.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, arising from the question asked by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, does the Minister recall that his noble friend Lord Macdonald, when happily in charge of transport, took powers on behalf of the Government to deal with the menace of people who persist on digging holes in the road without caring a jot for the inconvenience and danger they cause to others? I want to know whether the Government have ever used those powers and to express the hope that they will.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am speaking from recollection rather than from recent reading, but I understand that the Government have moved forward in trying to make it possible to introduce penalties when operators exceed the nominated time periods

455
they have set for roadworks. I very much hope that local authorities will be extremely vigorous in enforcing those penalties when operators do so.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I suspect that he is—that research indicates that one's attention is adversely affected by using a mobile telephone, irrespective of whether it is handheld or not, for up to 10 minutes after the conversation has concluded? I go out with various police forces on traffic patrol up to three dozen times a year. Is the Minister aware that every single officer at the sharp end wants to see specific legislation to ban the use of mobile telephones while driving?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am aware that such use affects the attention span of the driver. That is why the Government's position is quite clear that people should not use mobile telephones. Many other things happen within cars which also affect the attention span of drivers—and I shall not develop the point. However, as regards some such issues, one is dealing with the balance of risk.
We are aware that some European countries recently introduced mobile telephone legislation and we shall monitor the situation very carefully in order to see whether it informs us, in particular in relation to enforceability and impact.

Downview Prison
3.24 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government
What are their views on the report from the board of visitors on Downview prison.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we welcome the board's report which acknowledged a lot of good work at Downview and we will be giving it our full response shortly. We note particularly its concerns about the speed of the prison's change of role to a women's prison. That was necessitated by a steep rise in the female prison population and work is under way to address the board's concerns.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, when the crime rate is going down, the prison population is at its highest ever at more than 68,000? That includes 4.000 women, which is also a high figure. Does the Minister subscribe to his own independent Board of Visitors' report that Downview prison, which had the best drug rehabilitation programme, is now in a shambles; that inmate facilities are inadequate; that staff do not receive adequate training; and that there have been four suicide attempts?
Will the Minister explain where within the system we have produced a discrepancy which imprisons a large number of women offenders who overall commit less crime and yet are subjected to custodial penalties?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it sounds like a paradox, but the answer to the noble Lord's first question about why, when crime figures are going down, the prison population is going up is that the one may be following the other. If there are persistent offenders who have been caught, they go to prison. In this particular case there has been a phenomenal increase in the number of women sent to prison in the last period. It is currently some 4,050—that is the figure I have for Monday this week. A combination of factors is responsible for that: there is no one single factor. Many of the offences are drug-related.
There is a difficulty and we are having to increase the prison estate for women. However, the Government do not have a fixed number of people who should be in prison. The courts are doing the sentencing and we have requested that, where possible, those who do the sentencing look at alternatives to prison. We are seeking alternatives to prison. We have to be very careful about, for example, home detention curfews. We have asked governors to look at them and there is a risk involved, it is true. Nevertheless, there has been a large increase. Faced with that, the Prison Service had no choice but to make more emergency places available for women in prison. It will not allow overcrowding but it allows less overcrowding for women than for males. That urgent action has to be taken.
I do not accept that Downview prison is a shambles. There have been difficulties and they are being addressed. We regret the problems caused for the men who were moved out of there because it was a training prison. However, it was the best available prison in the best available location to meet the needs of the increase in the number of women prisoners.
Lord Acton: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the Lord Chief Justice, in an address to the Prison Reform Trust on 31st January this year, said:
"There should be a Board responsible for women in the criminal justice system. Its responsibilities in relation to women should be similar to that of the Youth Justice Board. It should regard its primary responsibility to be to contain the growth of the women prison population"?
In view of the alarming rise in the number of women prisoners, should not that weighty recommendation be implemented with the greatest possible speed?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know the details of that. It sounds an incredibly sensible suggestion to me but I suspect that somewhere it has been sat on. I shall have a problem for giving that answer because it sounds so sensible.
I myself have visited only one women's prison since I have been at the Home Office—it was an unannounced visit—and I came away wanting to bulldoze the place down. I was depressed because of the conditions there, the quality and lack of activity and other things, and because of what some of the people there told me about what they were in there for. That comes back to those who do the sentencing. Within the last 12 months a judge found it necessary to send a thalidomide quadriplegic to prison over arguing

457
about a debt for a couple of hundred quid. There was a terrible problem when that female arrived at the prison. What was the judge thinking about when he did that, I ask myself. It is that kind of issue that we ask the sentencers to think about. Is sending someone to prison the best possible sentence, bearing in mind the circumstances of the case?
Lord Elton: My Lords, clearly the Minister is in touch with real life. Can I ask him to encourage his department to examine how much money is spent on preventing young children entering into crime before they are old enough to do so? I include young women in that, and refer in particular to those young people excluded from school. Does the Minister agree that, if a larger budget were directed to addressing those issues, less would need to be spent by the Home Office, which would be encouraging for his department?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I cannot give the figures off the top of my head, but many programmes aimed at reducing the numbers of young offenders have been put in place by the Home Office, working in co-operation with local authorities and other bodies involved in the criminal justice system. We seek to cut out the problem at the earliest possible age because we know that such intervention can have a massive impact in later life. As I have said, numerous programmes have been put into place to that effect. Over time we hope that they will be successful; only time will tell. I can assure the noble Lord that we do not have to bring forward crime prevention programmes for young people. They are actively under way already.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, to return to Downview prison, warts and all, is it not the case that the prison has had a quite exceptionally good record in respect of education, training and rehabilitation? First, can the Minister therefore reassure the House that, when it is rerolled as a women's prison, that culture will be preserved and, indeed, enhanced for the benefit of its new occupants? Secondly, will the males being relocated have continuity in the educational provision that they have enjoyed at Downview?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right in his latter point. Downview was a category C training prison for men and it was extremely successful. It is true that we have disrupted the training programmes of some of the inmates. I understand that most, if not all, of the prisoners have been relocated to institutions of their choice and have been able to get their programmes under way. We want to run, if you like, a successful women's prison at Downview. It would be better if we did not have to have the prisons, but we must have them. We want Downview to be a successful institution, both for the convicted prisoners and for those on remand.
New management has been put into Downview to oversee the transition. It is not easy to effect a transfer. We have recently announced that Buckley Hall near
458
Rochdale is also being rerolled to become a women's prison. We have to make available greater capacity, otherwise we shall end up with overcrowding in women's prisons, which would destroy all the programmes aimed at education and so forth that need be carried out in prison.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.32 p.m.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
Clause 21 [Suspected international terrorist: certification]:
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale moved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 10, line 38, leave out "suspects" and insert "believes"
The noble Lord said: I am pleased to find my noble friend on the Front Bench in such a robust and realistic frame of mind. I hope that that will be reflected in his response when we come to the end of the debate on the amendment.
The amendment addresses a small but important point. Under Clause 21, foreign nationals suspected of being international terrorists can be imprisoned indefinitely on the basis of a judgment made by the Home Secretary. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have argued—I agree with them and I hope that the Committee will do so as well—that suspicion is a very low threshold indeed and forms an unsuitable basis for taking such an important decision.
Although the Government have amended the clause to include the test of reasonableness, no obvious good reason has been given as to why indefinite imprisonment may be exercised by the Home Secretary in one paragraph of the subsection on the basis of belief, while in the other it will be exercised on the basis of suspicion. It may be that the Government will argue that "belief" and "suspicion" are interchangeable and mean the same. Indeed, in Clause 25(2) and Clause 26(4) concerning appeals, both words are used one after the other, in both cases. That may be due to careless drafting, but if both words are said to have the same meaning, why are both being used? Logically, it would follow that if both words mean the same thing, only one word would need to be used. However, I do not believe that that is the case. I agree with the Bar Council that suspicion can be more lightly based than belief. I invite the Government to agree with me. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: Two of my noble friends and I have added our names to the amendment. We support it for

459
the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. It is a point which has been pressed by the Criminal Bar Association and I must say that I believe that the association is right. It is possible to suspect that something is true without believing it to be true. Suspicion is the stage reached before arriving at belief. It is appropriate that the test here should be one of belief rather than suspicion.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for raising the issue. It gives the Government an opportunity to put on the record the fact that there is a difference between the two words used here.
If there were a reasonable belief that someone was an international terrorist, then under the terms of the Terrorism Act, the police already have powers. For that reason, the clause as drafted is designed to cover cases where insufficient admissible evidence can be brought forward that points to a person being a terrorist. Indeed, that is the point of the clause. Our aim throughout has been that our first priority would be to prosecute alleged terrorists; secondly, if we cannot prosecute them, to remove them; and thirdly, failing the opportunity, wherewithal and appropriate circumstances to remove such people, to detain them. Those are the three routes of action. If there was a reasonable belief, then we will have in place the powers to act. It may be that in the other clause the powers are used for the same purpose, but in this respect, I should say to my noble friend that it is not the same.
I hope that I may take the opportunity in this the first debate of the day to widen my response to the amendment a little, in the hope that it may help our discussions during the remainder of the day and possibly the night. Since the publication of the Bill, the Government have continued to review it. We are keen to listen to Parliament and accept that the Government do not always know best. As Members of the Committee know, we made some changes to the Bill just as it was leaving the other place, such as the five-year sunset clause for the detention powers contained in Clauses 21 and 23. Later today I shall move amendments to the Bill to narrow the definition of people having links to international terrorists. I refer to Amendments Nos. 107 and 110.
Perhaps I may share with the Committee two further possible ways to make improvements. One will be general to the Bill while the other will be specific to the issues that we are due to debate today. At a recent meeting held in the Moses Room, during which noble Lords from all parties and the Cross Benches gathered to question the Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, put forward a suggestion for a procedure to consider the operation of the Act—as I shall refer to it—after it has passed through Parliament, in light of the shortened parliamentary time given to the process through to Royal Assent. We have given some initial thought to the noble Lord's suggestion, but we have made no decisions. I am not willing to announce any decisions and that is not the point here.
460
We have already placed in the Bill a review of Clauses 21 to 23 to be undertaken by a reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. After 15 months he will review the legislation and make a report. After that, an annual review of the operation of Clauses 21 to 23 will take place. Due to the swift passage of the Bill through Parliament, we are thinking—I seek to share thoughts with Members of the Committee for consideration over the days to come—of introducing a procedure whereby, after a period, Parliament itself could review the operation of the whole Act.
It might be suitable to institute such a review at the point of the first statutory review of Clauses 21 to 23 to be undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, following which he will carry out that review on an annual basis until the sunset point is reached. We do not have in place any mechanism, but given the sensitive nature of some areas of the Act, as it will become, there might be a case for a reasonable-sized group of Privy Counsellors drawn from both Houses to conduct a review during the period. It would report to the Home Secretary on the operation of the entire Act. We would seek a guarantee from the business managers of both Houses that that report would be debated in a full day's debate. Clearly it would be necessary for such a group, if it was formed, to have access to all the information they would need—hence the requirement that they should be Privy Counsellors. I leave that suggestion with Members of the Committee to mull over.
We do not see a need to put forward an amendment to the Bill because I believe that, if we were to take this route, a parliamentary Statement placed on the record in Hansard should be sufficient to operate that kind of external review. The external review is purely to take account, after a period and on a one-off basis—I say after 15 months because that would tie in with the review of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—of the fast-tracking of the Bill through Parliament.
A more specific point that I wish to raise concerns the appeal timetable for a suspected international terrorist to have his or her detention reviewed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We are firmly of the belief that six months is a reasonable period in the first instance. Under Clause 26(3) it is possible to have the detention reviewed at any time due to a change of circumstances, but we believe that, after the first six months review, the detention should be reviewed automatically at three-month intervals. We will therefore bring forward an amendment to that effect at a later stage.
I hope that the Committee will accept that we are prepared to listen and to change where we can and where we can keep the aims of the legislation in the direction that we want. In that spirit, I hope that we can proceed to consider the remainder of Clause 4 in the normal constructive way of the House.
Lord Goodhart: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he agrees that there are many cases in which a reasonable belief could arise in circumstances where no prosecution is possible for—instance, where it is based on inadmissible evidence or

461
where it is a belief on the balance of probabilities but falling short of beyond reasonable doubt. In those circumstances, is the Minister saying that there can be detention on the basis of a suspicion which falls short even of the balance of probabilities?
Lord Rooker: I do not think that the argument is about that point. The noble Lord's question would probably be best answered in the debates on the appeal procedure. The person will have the right to appeal. The certificate will have to be reviewed by SIAC. The Home Secretary will grant a certificate under Clause 21(1) on the basis I have outlined—that is, if he suspects that the person is an international terrorist as defined by the Bill—subject, of course, to the amendments that I shall be moving later in the debate.
Lord Elton: As the Minister has referred to his response to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord King—which I supported and debated with him—can he tell the Committee how this idea will be taken forward by the Government? First, is it likely to be a concrete proposition before we arrive at Report? Of course, one of the Government's objects must be to reassure the House as to the minimal risk of passing ill digested legislation.
Secondly, what thought has been given to what the product of such a review might be? Two days—one in each House—discussing matters of interest will be important, but the importance diminishes if there is no result from that except a sigh of, "Oh dear, it's not working as well as we hoped".
Lord Rooker: I have put out this suggestion in order to listen to what noble Lords have to say. The product would be a consideration of how the Act has operated. It may be that those who have seen how it has operated will say, "Well, in this area, it is absolutely first class. Ministers have got it really bang to rights. But they have really screwed it up here and we think that there should be some technical changes". Therefore, any report they wished to make to the Home Secretary for debate in Parliament would contain recommendations—either, first, "Everything is okay", or, secondly, "We think certain matters should be revisited".
How it will be taken forward will depend largely upon the reaction that we get from noble Lords. If people say, "This is not what we want. It is not worth a candle", we shall have to look for some other way. But we have given the idea serious consideration. The noble Lord, Lord King, made a very positive point. He took account of one issue—not the detail of all the individual issues in the Bill but the central issue of the whole Bill being directed towards this emergency and the prevention of other emergencies, the precautionary issue, if you like.
Some measures will be "sunsetted", some we do not propose to sunset, but we will look at the totality of the Act, after a reasonable period of time, and say, "Look, does the Act do what Parliament intended it to do and has it proved to be operationally feasible?". That will
462
be a useful exercise. It will take account of the fast-tracking of the Bill through both Houses. But it largely depends on the reaction of noble Lords. If we can come to some kind of agreement, it could be done quite quickly.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I imagine that there will be discussions through the usual channels or between the principal Front Bench spokesmen involved in the Bill. I hope that in those discussions will be raised the possibility of a small addition to the guarantee of time—that is, a guarantee that, if both Houses are of the view that a change needs to be made where Ministers have screwed up because of a technicality, to quote the Minister, sufficient time will be available to put right what has gone wrong.
That is a considerable undertaking—I do not ask the Minister to give it now because it is a commitment of parliamentary time—but it will make the difference between this being a nice gesture and an actual improvement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I am in no position to commit any more parliamentary time than I have already committed—that is, a guarantee that the report will be debated in both Houses. I ask the noble Lord to put himself in a position, 15 months down the road, where the issue has been looked at in the way I have described, or in some similar way. If there were concrete suggestions for modifications which gained the acceptance, generally speaking, of both Houses, they would have to be taken seriously. However, I cannot guarantee the position; it would be a matter for discussion. It may be that this would not meet the needs or desires of the original proposal.
However, we have looked at the suggestion. We have not stopped looking at ways to improve the Bill. We understand that we are fast-tracking the Bill through Parliament. There are no guillotines in this House—noble Lords will have eight days of debate; the other place has had three. We understand that and we want to take it into account so far as it concerns the whole Bill and not only the narrow parts that we have already committed to statutory review. We shall use our best endeavours.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: To return to the amendment under debate, I gather from the Minister's reply that the word "suspects" is a device to avoid the Terrorism Act from kicking in—that Act providing, of course, ample remedies for a person who is thought to be a terrorist. How can the Secretary of State reasonably believe a person to be a risk to national security and not reasonably believe him to be an international terrorist? What other threats to national security does the Minister have in mind in using that phrase?
I follow my noble friend Lord Goodhart in asking again what level of information has to be placed before a Minister to give him the reasonable suspicion that a person is an international terrorist. Is it a 1 per cent of

463
certainty belief; a 10 per cent of certainty belief; or what? Guidance needs to be given both to the Secretary of State and to SIAC, which reviews his decision, as to the standard of proof that has to be put before the Minister for him to come to the conclusion that a person could be an international terrorist. I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with that point.
Lord Rooker: The terms of Clause 21(1)—in other words, the grounds on which the Secretary of State would issue a certificate—state that he has, first, reasonably to believe that the person's presence is a risk to national security; and then suspect that the person is an international terrorist. It may be, for example, that we cannot prove, on the second limb, that someone is a member of a particular organisation, but we have enough grounds for believing that that person's presence in the UK is a threat to national security. Because of the information available, it may be impossible to do anything more than suspect that the person is an international terrorist.
There are two limbs in the clause. Suspicion is less than belief, but the suspicion that someone is a member of a terrorist organisation has to go with the first limb. The two limbs go together; there has to be a belief that there is a risk to national security and a suspicion—not a belief that the person is an international terrorist. We may not have the proof that a person is a member of an international terrorist organisation, but that will have to be set out in the certificate that is placed before SIAC. I cannot give an assessment of the risk on a scale of one to 10. I do not think that anyone would be in a position to do so until an actual case arose and a certificate had to be written.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Will the Minister forgive me for coming back on this point? How can the Secretary of State "suspect" that a person is an international terrorist—something rather less than "believing" that he is an international terrorist—and then go on to "believe" (which is the higher level of belief),
"that the person's presence in the United Kingdom is a risk to national security"?
How does that arise? It is simply illogical.
Lord Rooker: It is not. But I cannot go into it, because it will be a combination of facts that are known publicly and inadmissible evidence. The very reason that we shall not prosecute the person in the first place is that the evidence will be inadmissible in court.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. Unless it is accepted, the provision makes no sense in practice. In moving towards certainly, "belief" is nearer than "suspicion". I shall not go into percentages as regards the burden of proof. This is not a trial; it is an executive decision, taken reasonably by the Minister. But as part of that process, he really ought to "believe"—which is a higher standard than merely "suspecting". I am totally behind the issuing of
464
a certificate and have supported it all along. But to issue a certificate, with all the consequences, the Secretary of State really ought to "believe". This is a sensible amendment, which works better in practice.
The Earl of Onslow: If I am right—and, as always, I am open to correction, being a modest man—this process would not be subject to judicial review. So it does not matter what the subsection says. It does not matter whether it says "belief" or "suspicion". Whatever the Minister says goes. The fact that an Act of Parliament says one thing does not basically matter if, at the bottom, it states, "This is not subject to judicial review". That is where the tyranny starts. That is tyranny.
Earl Russell: The noble Earl is a little bit of a pessimist for once. We have not yet debated Amendment No. 104 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the amendment to it, Amendment No. 104ZA in the name of the noble Lord; nor have we debated clause stand part. In relation to the amendment before the Committee, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has just said. This is a considerable power. The Secretary of State ought to be pretty sure before he uses it.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: Will the Minister kindly confirm what I suspect to be the appropriate interpretation—I may be wholly wrong—first, that the two limbs go together? The word "and" is an important part of the subsection. There must, first, be a belief that a person is a risk to national security. That is the engine that brings him within the purview of the clause. If that is not there, the operation would be a complete non-starter. That needs a "reasonable belief". That is obviously a high standard.
As regards the second limb, there may well be some doubt, some uncertainty, something less than a "reasonable belier"—as the Minister indicated earlier, there may not be a surety—as to whether the person is a member of a particular organisation. That can be conveyed in a lesser degree of importance than the much more important matter that he is "reasonably believed" to be a risk to national security. Will the Minister please confirm that?
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. He is absolutely right. If there is a rock solid belief, a surety, that the person is an international terrorist, then there is another avenue for dealing with the matter. It is because we do not know, because we have a suspicion that the person is an international terrorist, coupled with the fact that the person's presence in the UK is a threat to national security. There is a weakness in the second limb, it is true; but that is the whole point of it. If we look for surety, we have another route—through the Terrorism Act. If we take no action, it means that even when we have suspicions that people are international terrorists, we leave them walking free. The purpose of the Bill is not to let that happen.
Earl Russell: Will the Minister provide one more piece of information? When decisions on asylum have been taken to appeal, what proportion of the Home Office's suspicions have proved to be justified?
Lord Rooker: It depends what kind of applications the noble Earl is talking about. They could be nationality applications, where there is a statutory process. They could be asylum applications, or marriage applications. I am not sure. There are areas where more than 50 per cent of Home Office decisions are secured on appeal. But off the top of my head I could give only one. It would be unfair merely to give the figure for asylum applications. That would not be right. We are not talking only about asylum seekers. There is a misnomer here; it would be wrong to equate.
The point is that this provision is subject to appeal. That is what SIAC is all about. Those noble Lords who were able to stay to the end of the debate two days ago to listen to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General explaining how in the Bill there is a greater degree of scrutiny than there would be under straightforward judicial review will probably hear that explanation repeated today. So this is not tyranny. That is an outrageous and offensive remark from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. The Minister's action is subject to review by judges of the High Court. To call that tyranny is an absolute nonsense. I reject it outright.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord said that I am accusing him of tyranny. If you allow Ministers to do something on suspicion, that is verging on tyranny. That is why my ancestors fought in the Civil War. Noble Lords opposite may laugh at English liberties, but I say to them: do not; they are too important. They are the liberties for me to stand up and bully the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and for the noble Lord to stand up and say that I am talking rubbish. That is what English liberties are all about. If we are not very, very careful, because we do not like one Arab who does something nasty and we suspect that he is wrong, we shall be in danger of holding back English liberties. That is something for which I have been in Parliament all my life and I shall go to the stake for. So when I use the word "tyranny", I use it totally advisedly. I have read my history. I have read my Stuarts and I have read my Gibbon. I know what I am talking about. The important thing is for the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to be able to tell me that I am talking rubbish. That is why English liberties are so important—and that is where the Bill goes wrong.
Earl Russell: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Earl—who is making a very serious point—to find a slightly more parliamentary way of expressing it.
The Earl of Onslow: The answer to that is "No"!
Lord Rooker: The only way I can express it is that we have a Home Secretary and a democratically elected Government. He will make the decision based on the reasonable grounds that a person he believes is a threat
466
to national security is in this country and some action should be taken. He is doing it to defend the liberties of the people who live in this country.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I am having some difficulty in understanding the procedure of this place, and the exchanges that have just taken place do not make it any easier for me to get to grips with it. I thank my noble friend for sharing those important thoughts with the Committee. I am only sorry that he was not so open-minded in regard to this little amendment. For several minutes I had the impression that it had been hijacked. The Minister generally impresses the House from the Dispatch Box, but on this amendment he has not been as clear as he normally is.
The clause applies only when a decision is taken that there is insufficient admissible evidence to use the vehicle of the Terrorism Act, because certain allegations cannot be proved. That is why we are here. I am grateful to those who have joined in the debate, and particularly to those who have taken this point. Against that background, it is all the more important that the Home Secretary's decision to issue a certificate should be based on something more substantial than suspicion.
I understand the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris, but I want the Minister to think about the issue again. We have to grasp the fact that the clause could result in a person being imprisoned indefinitely without trial. We understand the reasons for that and the relevance of the Terrorism Act. This is no light matter. I believe that it is proper to insist that the basis on which a certificate can be signed and issued should be belief—even though that belief cannot be proved in court to the satisfaction of a jury—because it is a stronger foundation than merely suspicion. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am likely to return to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 103B:
Page 10, line 38, leave out "an international" and insert "a"
The noble Lord said: I crave the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments because this is my first time on my feet today. I welcome the rather limited flexibility apparent in the Minister's opening remarks this afternoon. Any signs of flexibility in the treatment of this Bill are welcome. I was pleased to hear those comments. We shall have to wait and see the substance of those points before we are able to make a judgment on them. Does the Minister accept that, in part, the problems that we all face with the Bill, which make his flexibility all the more welcome, are caused by the breadth and scope of its content? Had the Bill been more focused, perhaps the more limited parliamentary supervision that we are able to give it would have been more acceptable.

467
I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104A and 110A. The purpose of the amendments is to remove an anomalous distinction. They would make the Bill comply with the Prime Minister's words in another place, when he said:
"the legislation that we propose will apply to terrorism wherever it occurs—whether inside the United Kingdom or outside, or whether it is international or domestic".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/10/01; col. 684.]
The first two amendments deal with the use of the word "international" in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 21, and Amendment No. 110A would remove the unnecessary and improper distinction from subsection (4).
That distinction leads to an oddity. Subsection (4) says:
"'international terrorism' does not include terrorism concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom".
Under that definition, somebody from abroad who was planning terrorism exclusively in London would not be an international terrorist. That is odd. Equally, an organisation based in London but undertaking UK-wide terrorism would be an international terrorist organisation. That is also odd.
There is then a question over the position of possible sub-groups of the Irish Republican Army, such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army, whose members have previously undertaken UK-wide bombing. Are they international terrorists or exclusively United Kingdom terrorists? One could go on, because there has been plenty of publicity about the international links between most terrorist organisations. We know that PIRA has had links with Colombia and Libya. Does that make them international terrorists? All terror organisations are involved in criminal activities, particularly with regard to the drug trade as a source of funding for imports of arms and explosives. It cannot easily be said with any certainty that there is such a thing as a purely UK terrorist organisation. We think that such distinctions are invidious and fly in the face of the remarks that the Prime Minister made before we got near to this Bill.
We do not think that the amendments attack in any way the purpose or intention of the Bill. Even with the amendments, this part of the Bill would still contain the necessary distinctions to enable it to function properly, as the Government desire. If the Minister is still in his flexible mode, I suggest that he could accept the amendments without destroying the integrity or intention of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: When the issue was discussed in the Commons, my party supported the Conservatives in a Division on the amendments. If the Conservatives choose to divide the Committee today, we shall not support them.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McNally: What a wonderful exhibition. Let me bring the Conservatives up to date. We are dealing with one of the most serious Bills before Parliament. On Second Reading, I told the House how my party
468
would deal with it. I said that in Committee we would probe and listen not just to the Government, but to the array of expertise around the Committee. Having probed in Committee, we would come to conclusions about where we agreed with the Government and where we disagreed with them. We are not interested in cheap Thursday night defeats of the Government, to be spun as they would.
Lord Waddington: I do not quite understand the noble Lord's argument. Surely his party has come to a conclusion about the matter. Why is it necessary now to hear the arguments, which have already been rejected by his party leader?
Lord McNally: If the late Home Secretary, had listened more to arguments, he might have made a better Home Secretary.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Shame! Apologise!
Lord McNally: I am not apologising.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: You should.
Lord McNally: Is that the way the Conservative Party wants to spend this afternoon—when we are remembering those whom we lost on 11th September? I do not believe that the Committee stage of this Bill is the time for taking one particular issue, dividing the Committee and trying to defeat the Government. We made it clear on Second Reading that we were going to listen—and we are listening.
The Earl of Onslow: There is something infinitely depressing about the noble Lord's remarks. Up to now, members of the Liberal Benches have been showing that they are both liberal and democratic.
Lord McNally: We do not need a lecture.
The Earl of Onslow: Oh yes you do! Suddenly, they have gone back into creep and soldier ant mode, which is so sad. We are dealing with something that is very serious. I am probably slightly more outside some of my colleagues in supporting many of the things said by the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is sad to see a great party—the party of Gladstone—go into creep mode. That is what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is doing.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I feel concern that this matter is being treated as a party issue when it is a national issue. There is little doubt that the IRA has been endeavouring to help Iraq learn how to make explosives and is in regular touch with ETA—the Basque terrorist movement that killed people only recently. Does not that suggest that the IRA is international and therefore should be covered by the Bill? It is as simple as that. Whether we vote now or at any other time may be a matter of tactics—I do not know. However, it is offensive to suggest that we

469
cannot debate the matter. I thought that the purpose of Committee stage was discussion. I hope that the Minister will regard this issue as relevant to the Bill and relevant now.
Lord McNally: That is exactly what I was suggesting. We should have a thorough discussion and hear what Ministers say. I find the wording at Clause 21(4)—where it states that international terrorism
"does not include terrorism concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom"
—a bit rum myself. Members of the other place had three days to discuss the Bill. Debate was not concertinaed and rushed through. Your Lordships have eight days, including four days in Committee. Since I have been a Member of the House, it has been the purpose of the Committee stage to probe, listen to argument and debate—not suddenly to be told that the Government will be defeated tomorrow afternoon on a single issue.
I have heard discussions in corridors—perhaps the Minister will deal with this—when it has been suggested that this is a piece of Government appeasement to the IRA, which is why a number of noble Lords are in the Committee and excited today. I genuinely want to understand why the Bill makes a distinction between terrorism and international terrorism, to produce contradictions. Is that because the Bill deals with a section of terrorists not already covered by the anti-terrorist legislation that we passed less than a year ago? I am exploring and probing. If the Minister's replies are unsatisfactory, we are willing to have talks with Conservative Members—as we did in the other place.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Would the noble Lord find it acceptable, as this is not a political issue, if we were to discuss the matter without preconceptions, listen to the arguments and vote according to our conscience?
Lord Hylton: I am inclined to think that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has a good point because this group of amendments tends to strengthen the Bill rather than weaken it. If the Government do not accept the amendment, I hope that the mover will return to them at the next stage.
Several noble Lords Several noble Lords rose—
Lord McNally: If I may be allowed to conclude my remarks, then others can get in at this wonderful Committee stage. There seems to be either an anomaly or a contradiction that needs clarification. If the Minister has a satisfactory explanation, he can rely on our support at Report stage. If the anomaly or contradiction is sustained, we may support the Conservatives—as we did in the other place.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: One thing that I learnt during 18 years in the other place was that emergency
470
legislation is fraught with difficulty, which is my reason for supporting the amendment. The lines in question will weaken the Bill by the negative way in which they deal with the problem.
Emergency legislation introduced by the Minister's party after the Birmingham bombing more than 25 years ago was subsequently opposed year after year by members of that same party when it was necessary annually to renew that legislation. We are treating the Bill as though it were a 15-month, six-month or even three-month measure for dealing with a short-term problem—yet the Government accept that defeating international terrorism is a long-term issue. Hence it is important that those parts of the Bill that are open to question are correctly and properly defined.
To suggest that international terrorism does not include—rather than defining what it does include—terrorism concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom, is for most of us totally confusing. What part of the United Kingdom are we talking about? Is that meant to cover only Northern Ireland? Is it meant to refer only to the Provisional IRA?
For the past three years, the Government have been telling me—and I have been prepared to accept—that the Provisional IRA wants to move away from terrorism. It appears that in these two lines, the Government are displaying doubts that I have been doing my best to avoid during that period. If we believe that the Provisional IRA is moving incrementally towards normality and participating in the democratic process, why would we discourage them? Why would we display signs of weakness by including such an element in the Bill? I hope that that is not done out of sensitivity to either the Real IRA or to loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland. If that is the case, it displays the sort of weakness that successive governments have been guilty of within the United Kingdom not for 10 years or 30 years, but since the Second World War. The events of 11th September were a catalyst not for something that has occurred in recent times, but rather for something that has crept up on us and to which we have turned a blind eye for many years.
So when the Government decide what is meant by,
"concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom",
will they then tell us what is deemed to be "the whole" of the United Kingdom? Are we thinking exclusively of Northern Ireland? Are we thinking of something that may happen in London or Manchester? If it does not happen in Gretna Green, does that mean it is not the whole of the United Kingdom? There is an almost simplistic nonsense in the form of words used in those two lines. The amendment removes a negative from the Bill and therefore I ask the Government to think carefully as to whether or not they should accept it.
I could go on talking about terrorist organisations and about what are their primary and secondary objectives—we have seen examples of that in recent times in Colombia. Albeit Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA claimed that to have been an

471
unauthorised activity, it had serious repercussions and our friends in the United States considered it such. But was it the primary objective of those members involved or was it their secondary objective, bringing us back to their primary objective in the United Kingdom? However, I conclude by saying that this important piece of legislation may have to sustain us not for six or 15 months, but for a considerable number of years. So let us not tie ourselves down to a totally negative qualification.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The framework the Government have chosen of using immigration procedures to control international terrorism clearly does not apply to British citizens who live in Northern Ireland nor, I believe, to citizens of the Irish Republic. It can only apply to people from outside. Consequently this is not an instrument for dealing with terrorism from that quarter.
In the spirit of probing and inquiry that always exists on these Benches, I should like to know from the Minister whether these procedures will cover, for example, a Basque-ETA terrorist who came to Wales to fund a separatist movement in such a way that would disrupt not just Wales, but the whole of the United Kingdom? Would a person in such circumstances be regarded as an international terrorist who would be subject to these procedures?
Lord Glentoran: I do not like to play party politics with Northern Ireland matters and today I am speaking from the Back Benches.
This provision is of particular importance to Northern Ireland and a number of issues arise from it which give me grave concern. I flagged up these problems both privately and semi-publicly the other night to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, who now speaks for the Government on Northern Ireland matters. I let it be known before the Bill arrived in your Lordships' House that this was an area of concern to those of us involved in Northern Ireland matters.
Over the few years I had the privilege to speak for the Opposition on Northern Ireland affairs, I had a great deal of discussion with and received much cooperation from the Government. This point was well flagged, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, in the Commons, and the whole of the Commons, other than those whipped, supported this amendment or something similar. I am therefore suspicious that once again the Government have a secret agenda for Northern Ireland.
We have quite a lot of legislation coming forward. I have been duly warned by the Lord Privy Seal that most of it will be contentious and, for some of us, difficult to accept. That is the way of life with Northern Ireland affairs. But something like this, which concerns the whole kingdom and is part of a worldwide international war against terrorism—as the President of the United States and our Prime Minister said—makes it incomprehensible that once again our Prime Minister is looking for a way not to keep a promise to the people of Northern Ireland. Is this yet
472
another promise that he and his party know they cannot keep? Is this just a sideways move to let the Government off the hook?
Logically, there is absolutely no sense in this clause. It has been said to me in the corridors that the Government's interpretation is different from mine and those on our side. In the Northern Ireland terrorist situation we have a series of terrorist groups. If we relate them to this clause, we will find that those who are on ceasefire—the "good" boys—are those who are most visibly seen as international terrorists. There is no doubt about their credentials. They have been seen in Colombia, in Libya, as was said by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, and in Turkey; they have been seen everywhere. We know that they have been training people from other terrorist organisations. We are not certain but have strong beliefs that they have had close links with the Al'Qaeda organisation. However, there are dissident groups in Northern Ireland who do not relate to anybody, and that includes the loyalist groups. They are bad news terrorists. As I understand it, if this amendment is not accepted, they will be treated as a different type of terrorist.
Noble Lords may remember that during a number of debates in this House, from the Dispatch Box I have accused the Government of trying to set up two classes of terrorism. Again that fear is coming to a head. I support the Government as much as I can in all that they have done and are doing in Ireland, and my party supports them. I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I am very sorry that somewhere betwixt and between there has been a complete change of mind. I do not know what has gone on between the usual channels.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McNally: In the Commons nothing approaching a debate like this took place on how the clauses applied to Northern Ireland. Rather than rushing to judgment I hope that Ministers and the Opposition read this debate, including the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Such a debate did not take place in the Commons because of the truncated nature of proceedings.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I conclude by asking the Minister at least to follow the lead of the noble Lord, McNally: to discuss the matter further with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office and those in the Home Office.
Earl Russell: During the time I have attended this Chamber, I have known many Members of the noble Lord's party whom I have regarded as great ornaments of this House. Two names come to mind: Lord Whitelaw and Lord Joseph. Both had the distinction of being capable of saying in this Chamber, "I have changed my mind". That was one of the things for which I most admired them. If my right honourable friend Mr Kennedy and my noble friend Lord McNally develop that same ability I should have thought that that is a reason for respecting them rather than the opposite.

473
For myself, I shall take a little persuading that the amendment should be accepted, partly for the reasons outlined by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. The whole framework of the Bill is designed to deal with immigration law, asylum law, international money transactions and aircraft. There are domestic terrorists other than the IRA who pose dangers to many of us, in particular to people in universities. I wish to see that dealt with. I do not think that it is effectively dealt with within the compass of the Bill. In Northern Ireland I believe—and I choose my verb with great care—that there is still a peace process in progress. I do not want to risk disturbing it by further legislation. If it should continue to be in process, it would give me very great pleasure.
Lord Crickhowell: I do not intend to follow my noble friend Lord Glentoran on the subject of Northern Ireland although I have the utmost sympathy with what he said.
I have written in the margin of Clause 21(4) almost exactly the same question as was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Perhaps I was prompted by the memory of a bomb placed in my son's bedroom some years ago. If some nationalist or language fanatic, perhaps linked with Basque terrorists who had similar objectives, were again to pursue a similar campaign, does that come under the definitions in Clause 21(4)?
We have had huge demonstrations in recent years against capitalism. What happens if a small group, based on feelings hostile to capitalism, starts placing bombs in the City of London? I am not sure whether or not that is,
"concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom".
Perhaps on examination it could be proved conclusively that it was part of something far more general. But I can think of circumstances in which the group concerned might be fairly narrowly based, connected with international groups, but directing its efforts entirely against a restricted part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we need answers to a number of important questions before we finally make up our minds.
As regards the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I hope that he will give us credit if we make up our minds on the subject of the debate. I hope he will listen carefully to the arguments. If he is not satisfied—I wish that he had explained his attitude somewhat more fully instead of devoting so much time to attacking my party—I hope that he will not hesitate on Report to vote against the Government. He indicated that he might. But when the issues are so clear and important, I am surprised that he was not more explicit about his eventual attitude. But I live in hope. I hope that we shall have him in the Lobbies with us if the Government do not produce satisfactory answers to the questions which have been asked.
Lord King of Bridgwater: I share the concerns which motivate the amendment. I do not understand the
474
point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, about "a part" of the United Kingdom. Clearly, if we are dealing with Irish republican terrorism and, to an extent, loyalist terrorism, it has taken place in every part of the United Kingdom. In no sense has it been restricted to one part.
If there is concern that there may be sensitivities in the light of the current situation, these are discretionary powers for the Home Secretary. He does not have to exercise them. It is up to him whether he uses them. To have the prohibition to remove the power from one particular area seems to me an unnecessary limitation.
However, I was provoked to speak by reading the helpful Explanatory Notes provided by the Government which state:
"Domestic terrorism is excluded from the certification process because the Government has concluded that the nature of the public emergency is such that it would not be justified in applying the extended immigration detention powers to those involved in such terrorism".
Whatever may be the reason for the inclusion of this restriction, that seems most peculiar. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's explanation of the Government's own Explanatory Notes.
Lord Monson: Was the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, right to suppose that a citizen of the Republic of Ireland would not be caught by Clause 21(4)? From my admittedly inexpert scrutiny of Clauses 21 to 23 it would seem that an Irish citizen could be caught if he were involved international terrorism. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that one way or another.
Lord Marlesford: Last month I spent a few days in the United States. I discovered how appalled the Americans were to have been introduced to the world of international terrorism. I also found how appalled they were to realise that for many years they had been contributing towards the financing of terrorism in the United Kingdom. That realisation is widespread.
I believe it is not unconnected with that realisation that the Sinn Fein-IRA has decided to make a move towards decommissioning—somewhat token though it may be. If the Government were not to accept the amendment, or something like it, in due course Sinn Fein-IRA would again be able to go to the United States flourishing what it would claim to be a clean bill of health from Her Majesty's Government and re-start its collection of funds. If it does not revert to terrorism, I suspect that it would have nothing to fear from this Bill. If it does, surely one can only echo the words of the Pope when he went to Ireland some years ago: "Murder is murder".
Lord Goodhart: I wish to take up and expand upon a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord King. The full title of the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If we have an organisation which wishes to separate those two constituent parts from each other—Northern Ireland and Great Britain—how could that be described as being an organisation which is

475
concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom? If it is an organisation which is concerned with the affairs of the whole of the United Kingdom, is it not already a case of international terrorism within the meaning of subsection (4) of Clause 21? I should like to hear the answer to that question.
Lord Rooker: This has been an interesting debate but it goes well beyond the central issue. Although I realise that the other place did not have much time to discuss the matter, it is apparent from some of the points Members of the Committee have made that they are aware of the unusual foundation of the legislation; namely, immigration legislation. That is the central issue we must keep in front of us. We are dealing with immigration legislation. For that reason and that reason alone, it is not possible for UK citizens to be treated in the way we are discussing as we could not deport them anywhere. They are UK citizens. The same rules could not apply. People who are not UK citizens have no right to be in the country other than the rights they have to work and so on.
The Earl of Onslow: May I—?
Lord Rooker: No, I want to continue. I shall give way to the noble Earl shortly. The central issue is that we cannot deport our own citizens. That has to be kept in mind. We are using the immigration powers. I shall try to deal with all the questions that were asked. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who referred to my next point. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland, for practical and legal purposes, are treated as UK citizens. We have a common area. There are no barriers between us. We are free to come and go between, or to work in, the two countries. There are no immigration restrictions as between the two countries.
The Earl of Onslow: May I—?
Lord Rooker: If I may complete the point. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland are not affected by this legislation because they are treated as UK citizens. I do not want to be misunderstood in the Republic of Ireland. Everyone understands that we share the British Isles, if I can put it that way. As I say, there are no barriers between us. Therefore, the citizens of the Republic of Ireland would not be affected by this legislation.
The Earl of Onslow: I have two points. First of all, this matter was settled by the Ireland Act 1949. When Costello took the Irish out of the Commonwealth they were deemed by Act of Parliament to be treated as British citizens. I am just briefing the noble Lord on that. I refer to the interesting difference between the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, yesterday when he said that the scope of the Bill was quite wide, which he defended, and what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is now saying; namely, that it is solely to do with immigration. It seems to me that the Government have not got their act together on that.
Lord Rooker: The noble Earl
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister develops his argument too much further it might help take matters forward if I say that I entirely accept the point that he has just made. I do so with no difficulty whatsoever as the amendments that we have tabled are not designed in any way either to attack or to erode that situation. The amendments that we have tabled are designed simply to remove from the Bill a distinction which would be better if it were not there. It is as simple as that. We accept that the Bill in that regard is established to capture terrorists who otherwise would be subject to our immigration law. We do not have any difficulty with that; we are dealing with a very specific and narrow point. I should like the narrow point to be addressed rather than the point which the Minister is addressing, which we do not think is affected in any way by the amendments we have tabled.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I shall address all the points that have been made. I do not criticise any as being narrow. However, the fact remains that the basis for introducing the legislation are the events of September 11th. We made that absolutely clear in the debate on derogation. Events preceding those of September 11th do not give us grounds for derogation. The Committee may argue that the Bill goes a little wider than that and that we are closing loopholes. We shall debate that matter. However, we must justify what we are doing in terms of terrorist threats. The international perspective has changed since September 11th, but the domestic perspective has not. We would have had no right to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights in terms of domestic terrorism as the perspective on domestic terrorism has not changed since September 11th. However, by common consent, the international perspective has changed. That is a central plank. We are not trying to act retrospectively.
Baroness Buscombe: May I—?
Lord Rooker: May I proceed? I shall give way to the noble Baroness. Some of the remarks that have been made revealed almost a resentment that the IRA and its political allies have participated in the peace process to the extent that they have. I do not accept that. There is a peace process under way. It may be inadequate from the standpoint of some people, but in terms of the domestic terrorism from which we have suffered for many years, a peace process is under way. That is the reality. It is not fast or deep enough, but people have their own views on it. However, no one can gainsay the fact that there is a peace process. As regards events before September 11th, we do not have any grounds for doing what we seek to do in this Bill, particularly in regard to the derogation from the European convention. That has to be the case. We are not in a position—
Baroness Buscombe: I hate to interrupt the Minister but I listened to his comments on the "Today"

477
programme this morning on the radio. He said quite clearly, "I will be bringing forward amendments to change the definition of international terrorism". Will the Minister tell me why he said that?
Lord Rooker: I have not seen the transcript. I know that I do not speak proper English, but I referred to the definition of an international terrorist. I know what I said. The fact of the matter is that the amendments are on the Marshalled List. It is not a question of bringing them forward. The "links" amendment is there for everyone to see. It is printed.
Baroness Buscombe: I make the point because millions of people listen to the "Today" programme. It is their understanding, having listened to the Minister, that there will be changes to this very vital part of this very vital Bill, in which case they are being misled. That is all I say.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness is making a mountain out of a molehill. The "links" issue was flagged up in the other place. I refer to the third limb of the definition of an international terrorist. Our amendments are clearly on the Marshalled List. I have already said that I shall move them in due course. An issue has been raised in that connection. I refer to our listening process and Clause 21(2)(c). As I said, our amendments are on the Marshalled List. That was what I referred to this morning. I have already referred to our Amendments Nos. 107 and 110. There is no argument about that.
Baroness Buscombe: I accept that those amendments are on the Marshalled List but they deal with links with terrorists; they do not deal with the clear definition of "international terrorism" and what that means.
Lord Rooker: They must because they define what an international terrorist is. That is what Clause 21(2) is about—the definition of an "international terrorist". We do not accept what the noble Baroness says because it has been said that we have got the matter right in paragraph (c). The definition is too wide and we want to narrow it. That issue was raised in the Select Committee report and it was raised this morning. I have not misled anyone. I made it quite clear that the amendments were on the Marshalled List.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Lord confirm that he has brought forward amendments which are linked? What did he mean by "I will bring forward", which is what he appears to have said on the wireless this morning? If he says, "I will bring forward", I should like to know what those amendments are because we have not seen them yet.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may make it clear. At a quarter to nine this morning I was talking about the future. But the future is now—today. The amendments have been published in the Marshalled
478
List. I am bringing them forward. There is no secret about them. They are not manuscript amendments; they are printed and available for everyone to see. We said that we would bring forward those amendments and we have done so. I am sorry if people are unhappy about us moving forward on this matter but, frankly, we believe that a good case for it has been made. We believe that the wording in paragraph (c) was much too wide and that is why we are rewriting it.
I want to make a further point. We are dealing with the peace process because the issue of Northern Ireland has been raised. I hope that I have explained why this legislation, which has come about due to changed circumstances following September 11th and deals with international terrorism carried out by international terrorists, does not apply to the situation that preceded the events of that date. Plenty of legislation is in place to deal with that situation and it would not allow us to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights so far as concerns UK citizens. That is clear.
Members of the Committee have not followed the logic of what they are saying or hinting at; that is, that somehow we can deport UK citizens. We cannot do so. We want to prosecute terrorists, whether they be international or domestic. If we cannot prosecute international terrorists, then we want to detain them if we cannot remove them. We have difficulties in that regard. That is why this legislation has been brought forward.
Lord Waddington: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I am trying to follow the argument very carefully. I appreciate that we are dealing with the part of the Bill which concerns immigration. I appreciate that this Bill is not apt to deal with a British citizen who is not behaving properly. But what about the non-British citizen who is subject to immigration control? He arrives in this country and it then becomes apparent that he intends to become involved in an act of terrorism in Northern Ireland in support of a group which is not acting under a cease-fire. Would it not be absurd if he could not be dealt with under this Bill and be detained? He is a terrorist. He is not a British citizen. He is just the type of person whom we would want to get rid of but perhaps could not return to the country from which he had come, be it Libya or somewhere else in the Middle East.
Lord Rooker: That fits in with the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and another noble Lord about Wales. I have no doubt that there will be highly legalistic arguments about this matter. But, first, it is accepted that we cannot deport UK citizens who are here on a sound basis; it is non-UK citizens whom we want to deport. We are talking about someone who enters this country as an international citizen—that is, someone who is not from the UK—and commits acts of terrorism. If those acts concern the affairs of part of the UK—noble Lords have concentrated on Ireland but an example was also given of Welsh extremists—then it would be argued that it

479
was a domestic offence because the purpose was to help a domestic terrorist organisation, wherever it may be within the UK.
Immigration rules are in place to deal with removing foreigners. Where we cannot remove them, then, in any event, we have a difficulty. That is the case at present. I say to the noble Lord, the former Home Secretary, that SIAC was set up for that very purpose. There may be the odd case which proves to be an exception, but we do not have the powers or the rationale to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights for events relating to pre-September 11th activities. We would be unable to act on such events.
Although that may appear to be illogical, it is not. One must accept at base that we are trying to meet needs resulting from what happened on, and what has changed since, September 11th. What occurred before then was happening anyway, and, since then, events have occurred during which people have been arrested. The ensuing investigations are continuing under what I shall call our own "domestic terrorism legislation".
This part of the Bill is designed specifically to deal with the activities of international terrorists. If they are in the UK, we must take action to deal with them. That is why the measured response in Clauses 21 to 23 is called for. We may need to detain such people and, if we cannot prosecute or remove them and we are not prepared to have them walking free on the streets, we need to set up powers of detention. That seems to me to be logical.
It would not be logical, and I suspect that the law would collapse because of a derogation from the ECHR, if we attempted to apply the legislation to events which occurred before September 11th. We cannot drum up a reason post-September 11th and say, "Well, things were happening previously and, by the way, we need to catch everyone in this". That would not be accepted and we should not be able to put that type of legislation before both Houses. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Crickhowell: I sympathise entirely with what the Minister is trying to do. However, if I understand correctly what he has just said, he has confirmed the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford., and myself. That point was that the Basque terrorist coming here in order to place bombs in Wales or, indeed, the Libyan terrorist arriving in Northern Ireland and letting off bombs would escape under this clause because that person would be dealing only with a part of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that we have left an enormous and quite extraordinary gap. Surely that defence will be used by almost any international terrorist who arrives in this country. Such a person will say, "We aren't dealing with broad matters. Our only interest is in putting a bomb in the place where we put it".
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord gives a preposterous example. He talks about international terrorists popping into an airport and saying, "By the way, we have come to lay some bombs in Wales or Northern
480
Ireland". That is preposterous. The whole point about this legislation is that the people with whom we are dealing are difficult to catch. When we apprehend them, it will be impossible to prove in a court of law that they are terrorists. For that reason, and because we cannot go to an open court of law, we need the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We need the two judges and the lay person to deal with the matter so that we can obtain a certificate in order to detain such a person. That is the whole point of the exercise. If that person were open and above board, we should be in a different ball game and we should not need this type of legislative action. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord King.
Lord King of Bridgwater: I shall give the noble Lord a far less preposterous proposition. He is probably aware that previously in connection with PIRA, and certainly also now—most recently in connection with the Real IRA—there are people, subject to immigration controls, against whom there is not adequate evidence which immediately and accurately fits the description that the Minister has just given of the reason why he requires those powers. I fail completely to understand, when the discretion still remains with the Home Secretary as to whether or not he decides to use them, in any one individual circumstance—I believe that the fact that there are discretionary powers is a matter that concerns a number of your Lordships—why, under this Bill, the Government have decided to prevent themselves being able to take action in such circumstances. I find that incomprehensible.
Lord Rooker: I am not sure about the example that the noble Lord gives. His knowledge in this area is greater than mine, but the fact is that non-UK citizens will be affected by this legislation. The noble Lord did not give details of the nationality of the people concerned.
I return to the central issue. Here we are using immigration Act powers. We have taken that approach because the people with whom we are trying to deal are those who, by and large, have no right to be in the country. They are not UK citizens and, therefore, we have the power to remove them if we cannot prosecute them. If we cannot remove them, we need to get them off the streets if we reasonably believe that they are international terrorists or we suspect that they are members of international terrorist organisations. That is the reality. We are not trying to revisit the difficulties and the tragedies that we have had for the past 30 years with regard to our own domestic terrorism. That is an issue for other legislation.
Some noble Lords appear to be implying, but not exactly saying, "Bring back genuine internment", or, "Lock them up", on the grounds that such people cannot go anywhere because there is nowhere for them to go. I do not accept that the detention that we are proposing is internment because such people can leave the country at any time they like for a third country. If that is what those noble Lords are saying, it would be

481
much better if they did so openly; that way, we would know where we were in this debate. The reality is that we are not going down the road of reintroducing internment in this country.
5 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I want him to clarify something. I believe that he wishes to exclude the IRA from the provisions of Clause 21, but the Bill covers many other matters. I draw his attention, for example, to Clause 51, which we shall discuss later. It is entitled:
"Assisting or inducing certain weapons-related acts overseas".
That is undoubtedly related to the IRA. I cannot understand why the Government should wish to take from themselves the freedom to operate the legislation in the widest possible way. It seems that that is what is happening in this context.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness may not like it, but that is not consistent with the Government's policy of trying to make a success of the peace process. For reasons that I have explained more than once, we are not going to return to the situation before September 11th. We have had to derogate—some might use the word "breach"—a convention that this country has been signed up to, under governments of both parties, for 50 years. We have done that openly and we know our reasons for doing so. We did not like doing it but we did it because that is the best way in which we can establish a legislative system for locking up people whom we cannot remove.
I agree that other parts of the Bill, which go wider than the detention of non-UK citizens, apply much more widely. If the noble Baroness, Lady Park, wants to attack them, we shall defend them.
Baroness Blatch: I make two points. First, the Real IRA is not signed up to the peace process. Secondly, the noble Lord said a moment ago that all non-UK citizens would be caught by the Bill. That is simply not true.
Lord Rooker: I am not sure whether I said "non-EU" or "non-UK". We are not going to lock up UK citizens. I state that non-UK citizens are involved; that is why we are using the immigration rules. It may be that if members of Al'Qaeda end up in this country and are non-UK citizens, they will be covered by the provisions. We have laboured that point on several occasions.
Lord Tebbit: Is the Minister aware that he has greatly enhanced his reputation as a man who speaks the truth, even when it is not palatable to his colleagues? He did that when he explained that this whole debate is based around the Government's policy of wishing to continue to appease Irish republicans, including violent Irish republicans. That is the truth of the matter.
Lord Rooker: I have considerable respect for the noble Lord, but that is not a fair description of what I said.
482
There is not much more that I can say on this matter. The issue is, as noble Lords will accept, narrow—we want to exclude from the Bill's detention powers domestic terrorism, if I can use that phrase, when it is conducted by what we may call domestic citizens. That is because we have other ways of dealing with it. The mechanism in this context for dealing with international terrorists would not be suitable or consistent with our general policies for dealing with our home-grown terrorists.
I have also said that we would not be able to derogate from the ECHR. It may be that people want us to go much further—to tear it up, get rid of Article 3 and pull out completely. However, that is not the Government's policy.
I conclude, although I have not convinced noble Lords opposite, by saying that there are good logical grounds for setting out the definition of international terrorism in the way that the Bill does. I therefore invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Glentoran: Before the Minister concludes, will he confirm that the real reason that he wishes to hold his ground on this amendment is that Her Majesty's Government do not wish to use the power of derogation from the ECHR in any way that would embarrass their relationship with the Prime Minister of Ireland?
Lord Rooker: I cannot confirm anything of the kind, and I cannot really add to what I have already said.
Lord McNally: During the heated exchange at the beginning of this debate I said something very unworthy about the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I would not like that to stay uncorrected in Hansard and I withdraw it absolutely and unconditionally.
Lord Waddington: That is very gracious of the noble Lord.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have listened with fascinated horror as this debate has developed. I thought that the amendment involved a fairly limited, reasonable and coolly considered matter. We need to get back to the amendment and away from the enormously emotive and much wider matter, which is completely irrelevant to the point that I sought to raise in the amendment. That wider matter involves the attempt to solve the problems of Northern Ireland. That is the area into which we have trespassed—I use that word deliberately. I regret that we allowed ourselves to be distracted in that way, but not because anything that was said was inherently wrong. As I said earlier, I was seeking to remove from the Bill a distinction that I regard as invidious and unnecessary. I also said that the amendment would not affect the Bill's core principles.
To pick up one of the Minister's points, I entirely accept that it is right that anyone who is a UK citizen and who undertakes a terrorist act in the United Kingdom should be dealt with by domestic law. I have no difficulty with that or with the fact that the Bill sets

483
out to establish that non-UK citizens in terrorist organisations should be dealt with under the immigration laws, if that is a necessary part of the process. The amendment does not affect that arrangement one iota.
I am grateful to those who spoke in support of my amendment—the majority of those who spoke. That gives me some encouragement. It saddened me, however, that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke in the way that he did at the start of the debate. The purpose of debates in this place is to inform ourselves of the issues that are under discussion. It is at the end of such debates that one should make a judgment about how one should go on; one should not do so before such debates.
I add, in parenthesis, that there three main stages in a Bill's passage through this place. That is supposed to involve a filtration process that eliminates some matters. Some noble Lords appear to think that tabling amendments, voting on them and disposing of matters in Committee is improper, but that is a regrettable view. I have always thought that we should be able to dispose of matters if we have reached a clear decision in Committee and that we should leave the Bill's later stages clear so that we can deal with those matters that are more controversial. That seems to be an entirely proper way of going on.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said, as I heard what he said at Second Reading. I am not surprised. On reflection and in light of the debate, I hope that the Members of his party will consider that they have reason to go against their narrow practice in this matter. Interesting though the debate has been, the breadth of opinions that have been expressed have supported the amendment. Therefore, I shall test the opinion of the Committee.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 103B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Ackner, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Burnham, L.

Arran, E.

Buscombe, B.

Astor, V.

Byford, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Caithness, E.

Attlee, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Bell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Biffen, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Chadlington, L.

Blackwell, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blaker, L.

Cockfield, L.

Blatch, B.

Colwyn, L.

Boardman, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Bowness, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Crathorne, L.

484

Crickhowell, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cuckney, L.

Monson, L.

Deedes, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Denham, L.

Montrose, D.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Moynihan, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Naseby, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Elton, L.

Nickson, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Flather, B.

Onslow, E.

Fookes, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Freeman, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Goschen, V.

Pym, L.

Hanham, B.

Rawlings, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Reay, L.

Henley, L.

Rees, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hogg, B.

Renton, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hooper, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howe, E.

Rogan, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Saatchi, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandwich, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

Selborne, E.

Kelvedon, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Slim, V.

Kingsland, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Laird, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lane, L.

Stewartby L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Liverpool, E.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas, L.

Tebbit, L.

Luke, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trefgarne, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Waddington, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Acton, L.

Brennan, L.

Ahmed, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Alli, L.

Brookman, L.

Amos, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Andrews, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Burlison, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carter, L. [Teller].

Bach, L.

Chandos, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Christopher, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Billingham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Blackstone, B.

Condon, L.

Borrie, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bragg, L.

Crawley, B.

485

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Marsh, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dubs, L.

Mitchell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morgan, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Nicol, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Parekh, L.

Filkin, L.

Peston, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gale, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grabiner, L.

Richard, L.

Grenfell, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Grocott, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Rooker, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harrison, L.

Sawyer, L.

Haskel, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hayman, B.

Sewel, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sheldon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hylton, L.

Tenby, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Tomlinson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Uddin, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jones, L.

Warner, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Layard, L.

Weatherill, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Levy, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lipsey, L.

Whitty, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wilkins, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [teller]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 10, line 38, at end insert—
"(1A) Any certificate issued under subsection (1) shall be accompanied by written grounds on which the belief or suspicion of the Secretary of State is reasonably entertained, which shall be subject to judicial review in the High Court."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 104, I intend to accept Amendment No. 104ZA, which, although tabled by me, is to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as it is not possible for me to
486
move an amendment to my own amendment. So I ask leave to speak to the amendment as amended or as to be amended. I am obliged.
This amendment, as amended, would ensure that the substance of the grounds on which a certificate is issued by the Secretary of State would have to be made known to the person concerned, excluding any sensitive intelligence material for which a claim to privilege from disclosure would be made.
It would also ensure that all documents, materials and information on which the Secretary of State issued the certificate—the full grounds, whether or not subject to a claim for disclosure—should go before the judge on judicial review to decide whether the belief or suspicion of the Secretary of State under Clause 21 could have been reasonable; if not, to quash the decision or, as is often the practice, as the noble and learned Lord will know, to remit to the Secretary of State for further consideration.
The noble and learned Lord will also know that about six years ago there was a case in the European Court of Justice where there was no such review of the merits and no disclosure such as would have been ordained under the amendment. The court found that judicial review failed to provide adequate safeguards for the right of liberty in cases of deportation involving security.
I mention that at the outset because that case, which the noble and learned Lord will know, is wholly distinguishable and would not apply to the regime as proposed by the amendment under which the judiciary retains its constitutional function to contain abuse of power by the executive. The amendment is dependent upon retention of judicial review and habeas corpus. It requires that Clauses 30 and 31 do not stand part of the Bill. Having spoken to that on the amendment, by leave of Members of the Committee, I shall not speak to it again when it is moved.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): I thank the noble Lord for giving way. As he rightly says, the question of the suitability of the SIAC review compared with judicial review forms part of a further grouping. I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to deal with those matters together and to deal at this stage with that part of the noble Lord's amendment which relates to the provision of information which would then form the basis of either judicial review or SIAC. I simply put that before the noble Lord for consideration. I do not insist; I am in no position to do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I shall do anything that is for the convenience of the Committee. I thought that it would save time if I dealt with both amendments together. Amendment No. 104ZA will be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is easier to deal with both at the same time as everybody has the Marshalled List and the supplementary list.

487
The object will be that this essential requirement of natural justice will be fulfilled; that a decision of the executive, albeit on reasonable suspicion and belief, should be taken on grounds that are made known to the person affected by the decision. An examination of the adequacy of such grounds by the High Court is the essence of judicial review in this context. As the sense of this House, as expressed in Committee, was in favour of retention of judicial review, the substance of such grounds must be given. In the absence of such grounds, or any reason made known to the person affected, the High Court would quash the decision. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure, as I have said, that the substance of those grounds is made known to the person affected and is adequate to support reasonable belief and suspicion entertained by the Secretary of State.
It has not yet been understood by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that it is not proposed that the grounds should disclose sensitive intelligence information which would prejudice and undermine security. One has only to refer to the exchanges initiated by me in Committee at cols. 280 and 285—I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his responses—to see that there was a clear misunderstanding as to the intent of my amendment. I hope that Chat misunderstanding will be clarified by the amendment to be moved by the noble Earl in due course.
As I have said before, it is wholly accepted that the certification under Clause 21(1) as amended in another place is requisite to detain and inhibit the propensity to roam and is a legitimate executive act taken on sensitive intelligence information, which must not be disclosed to anyone other than the High Court judge or judges on judicial review.
The information for which privilege from disclosure would he claimed under the amendment to be moved by the noble Earl would be handed to the judge to read, usually in his room, no doubt by an intelligence officer who had the file. The judge would give his ruling in open court. The High Court, as the Attorney knows well but the Committee does not, is wholly accustomed to dealing with claims of privilege from disclosure on grounds of national security. The grounds to accompany the certification would not disclose such material. They could merely refer to documents, information and material not disclosed for which a claim for privilege would be made.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden was concerned about the drafting of the amendment in the context of security, of which he has personal expertise as a former Secretary of State and Attorney. To meet that concern I had discussions with him to ensure that sensitive intelligence information was not disclosed in the written grounds which accompany the certificate to be served on the person so certified. I am grateful for the advice of the noble and learned Lord, who has not seen this draft, that in its original form this was perhaps too widely drafted. I commend this to the Committee in principle so that,
488
in the light of debate, perhaps the form which it should take on Report may be considered, having regard to the fact that as a rule under SIAC's regime the formulation of grounds of appeal is not possible. That is done only on the advice of the specialist advocate who has the reasons and grounds for the decision by the Secretary of State with which the person has to deal and the grounds which have to be met on any appeal.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for producing SIAC's rules of procedure. I do not propose to refer to them in any detail, save to explain that in the context of what is in effect a denial of justice it is the in-house special advocate who makes submissions to the commission in proceedings from which the appellant and his representatives are excluded. He cross-examines the witnesses in such proceedings, identifies points of law on appeal from SIAC and makes written submissions. But he may not communicate any of the information that he has about the grounds and material before the Secretary of State directly or indirectly to the appellant or his representative on any matter connected with proceedings. That is a most curious form of administration in a context for which it was not originally designed. It was designed for a totally different purpose. The Committee may well consider that to be wholly unfair, unsatisfactory, contrary to our concept of natural justice and no substitute for the safeguard afforded by judicial review. For that reason, it is essential that the jurisdiction of the High Court should not be excluded. I beg to move.
Earl Russellmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 104, Amendment No. 104ZA:
Line 4 of the amendment, after "entertained" insert "(without documents, materials, or information for witch privilege from disclosure will be claimed on grounds of national security)"
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 104ZA. I discussed this amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in general terms very late last night. The reason I did not put my name to it this morning was that my mind was momentarily on my job; otherwise, it would certainly have appeared in my name. I fully support that amendment and Amendment No. 104 which goes with it.
In Clause 21 we are concerned with one of the most difficult areas of the whole Bill. I refer to a conflict between right and right. I entirely understand why the Government want the clause. As the Minister put it in reply to the previous amendment, we do not want people who are a threat to our security and cannot be returned anywhere else to be at large on our streets and free to do any evil that they wish. I understand the Government's problem in that regard.
I also understand extremely well the difficulty of revealing sensitive security sources. On occasion that may involve a risk to life. That point is dealt with most clearly in Amendment No. 104ZA. When there is a leak, usually one does not track down exactly who has done it; one arrives at a short list of three or four, any one of whom might have done it. In certain criminal and terrorist organisations the emergence of that information may lead to the death of all four of those

489
people. I remember cases when people, faced with a charge of leaking, have had to reply in the words of the Limerick:
"I sat next to the Duchess at tea,
It was just as I feared it would be.
Her rumblings abdominal were simply phenomenal,
And everyone thought it was me".
Granted that these evils need to be remedied, it is also true that detention without cause shown is an evil and has been recognised as such in English law for as long as that law has existed.
We are discussing here the question of how to choose the lesser of two evils. If there is any way in which this circle can be squared, which is what the amendment seeks to do, I believe that it should be tried. The general framework in which I seek to place the amendment is that set by the very interesting Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. He said nobody suggested that these people should be left at large but one wanted what was done to them to be under proper judicial protection. That can be only if there are reasons, known at the very least to the judge, which explain exactly why they are being detained.
In a case which occurred seven years before Magna Carta, King John arrested one of his barons. He gave as the cause for the imprisonment—I shall give the Latin so that Members of the Committee can check my translation if they want—quod super eum irate fuimus: because we were cross with him. That is something to which no judicial response can be made. It is essential to any judicial proceedings that there should be a charge which is capable of answer.
The other point about detention without cause shown is that it goes on longer than the terrorist threat. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, made the point that it may last indefinitely. But, what is more, it may remain on the statute book for decades, even centuries, after the need which gave rise to it.
It is, I think, well understood that judges are capable of hearing the most sensitive information with total confidentiality. I have with me a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. He regrets that he is unable to take part in this stage of the proceedings on the Bill because he was already committed to be abroad. I shall not refer to the rest of it because it deals with the issue of judicial review. I accept what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has said about that.
However, he draws my attention to one occasion when he held a judicial review case entirely in camera, not for security reasons but for financial ones. The consequences of the information coming out before the case was concluded could have been disastrous. That worked. I believe that our judges can be trusted in that kind of situation. They certainly have been in the past. I am not aware of any cases where we have been let down.
490
The amendment proposes that a clear statement of the reasons should be given to judges. It provides for the judicial review procedure. That is important. I shall say no more about that. So it does a good deal to alleviate the problems created by Clause 21.
I shall not say that it removes them because I shall mention one more problem which concerns me, in the hope that someone in the House has the wisdom of seeing a way to tackle it. That is the problem of communicating the reasons to the suspect. I can see very grave difficulties in communicating reasons to the suspect. I entirely understand why the Government are uncomfortable about it—because they also may work out where the information came from.
On the other hand, the maxim that we must hear both sides is a fundamental part of natural justice. Although a lawyer and a judge may hear the information, if the suspect cannot it may be extremely difficult to answer it. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in the case of Ridge v. Baldwin, what appears to be a man dead drunk in the gutter may in fact be a diabetic who has run out of insulin. If anyone can think of a solution to that problem I shall listen to it with great interest. I confess that I do not have one. However, if the amendment were adopted I believe that the clause would be very much better than it is at present. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask a question that has been troubling me as I have listened to the debate and most of the one before it. That is, let us suppose that one has an individual who has been before the courts and who has been convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Secretary of State decides when he has reached the end of his sentence that it would still be a threat to our security to have him at large on our streets—as the matter was put by my noble friend Lord Russell. Would he then be able to issue a certificate on the basis that the man was plainly a terrorist having been convicted in the courts? Furthermore, would that not he subject to judicial review when everyone knew what the reasons were?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I am happy to speak to the amendment as amended by the further amendment. There are two broad issues: first, the reasons for issuing a certificate—I shall deal with that and the different elements of the amendments; and, secondly, the question of the availability of judicial review. When I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I was simply indicating that that general issue arises under Amendments Nos 124 and 125 and Clause 30 stand part, which have been grouped together. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee as to the right way to deal with it.
I first deal with the question of the reasons. It is important to note that Clause 27(6) of the Bill applies the provisions of the SIAC procedure rules to any,
"appeal, review or application which is made under sections 25 or 26".

491
I make it perfectly plain that in referring to these provisions—as I now do—and in recognising the particular circumstances of the Bill, I express absolutely no criticism that I may be the first to refer to those rules. However, what I say in relation to them may allay—I hope entirely, but certainly substantially—concerns which have been expressed, because those rules which already exist to deal with the cases that SIAC handles have to cope with exactly the problem which the noble Lord and the noble Earl have so clearly set out, the substance of which I have no difficulty with.
Rule 10 provides that where there is an application, or appeal as it is at the moment, to SIAC the Secretary of State is required to submit to it a summary of the facts relating to the decision being appealed and the reasons for it. He has to inform the commission of the grounds on which he opposes the appeal and to provide it with the statement of the evidence which he relies on in support of those grounds. That first step deals, I hope, with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which I entirely accept, that it is important that the judicial body which is scrutinising and reviewing—SIAC in this case—knows the basis on which the Secretary of State made his decision. Therefore, that information has to be provided to SIAC under the rules as it stands.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, there is a real issue that then arises. The issue that arises is that that may very well, and indeed is likely to, include some sensitive intelligence information which, for the reasons that he has given, it simply is not appropriate, without compromising national security, for the particular applicant to receive. I was grateful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, with his great experience, having held the office that I am now privileged to hold, certainly seemed to accept that the other day, as did other Members of the Committee.
In those circumstances, the SIAC rules provide quite a convoluted but, I hope Members of the Committee will agree, a very satisfactory procedure for dealing with that situation. They involve various steps. The material from the Secretary of State will be passed by SIAC to the applicant unless the Secretary of State objects on the grounds of national security, or such like. If he does, the special advocate procedure is then invoked.
In response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the special advocate is not properly characterised as an in-house lawyer. He is not a SIAC lawyer. He is an independent lawyer who is chosen from a list of experienced counsel. They are vetted so that they can see security information. His job is not to act for SIAC but to represent the interests of the applicant. Indeed, he is on a list which is held by my office, which identifies proper and appropriate people who are independent and who will do the job.
That person then sees all of that information, and there may then be a dispute about whether some of it should be provided to the applicant. The commission can consider that under SIAC's Rule 11. The rule
492
states that, having considered the Secretary of State's objections, and having heard oral representations from the special advocate, the commission may be minded to overrule the Secretary of State's objection, or require him to provide material in a different form from that in which he has provided it already.
The effect of that is that the commission can conclude that, notwithstanding the objections, the information ought in fact to be passed across, or passed across in a different form, which may permit the provision of material in the form of a summary or gist that does not give rise to a problem with national security.
If the Secretary of State does not like that, he may simply not be able to rely on that evidence. That may be a problem for the Secretary of State, but I hope that the Committee will agree that that provides the answer to the problems that have been identified.
In summary, the appellant will have access to the information relevant to the Secretary of State's decision that is disclosable. He will not have access to sensitive information, but that will be available to the special advocate and, as I explained, the commission can require further information to be provided in a different form.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, because it is perhaps easier to take the point in the context now, rather than leave it until later.
There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to give any grounds; it is purely discretionary. Can the Minister point to any obligation on the Secretary of State, or is it purely a matter for his discretion?
Lord Goldsmith: No, it is not. I mean no criticism by drawing the noble Lord's attention to Rule 10. That states:
"If the Secretary of State intends to oppose the appeal, he must"—
he must—
"provide the Commission with a summary of the facts relating to the decision being appealed … inform the Commission of the grounds on which he opposes the appeal; and … provide the Commission with a statement of the evidence which he relies upon in support of those grounds".
That is the material that the commission then considers in conducting its judicial scrutiny of the Secretary of State's decision and reaching its decision on whether or not the certificate should stand.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: How can the man form any sane and reasonable notice of appeal until he has been given really full information of the grounds upon which the decision has been made? This is what I find difficult to understand.
Lord Goldsmith: With respect, I do not think that that is so difficult to understand, for this reason. We are talking about a situation in which the Secretary of State has resolved that a certificate should be issued, with the effect that a person is then detained. Under

493
those circumstances, I do not find it difficult to imagine that the immediate reaction of the person detained will be to take the Secretary of State's decision to SIAC to have its basis tested. That will immediately invoke the procedure.
Lord Neill of Bladen: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could deal with a difficulty. We are continuing a dialogue that began on Monday night. I have what is really a probing question about the special advocate. In the ordinary way, an advocate, in making a submission or representation, is acting on instructions from a client. The special advocate will, as I understand it, not be in that position. He will be seeing material in the commission's possession that the accused—or whatever one cares to call him—will not have seen. The special advocate will have to address submissions to which his "client" may have an answer, but without knowing that answer because he has not been able to take instructions.
Lord Goldsmith: Of course I understand the noble Lord's point. I have used the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in the debate on the derogation order earlier this month. He said that he regarded the SIAC procedure as a fair compromise. It is a fair compromise between the desire to ensure that the judicial body is in the best possible position to judge whether or not the certificate, and therefore the detention, is right and the need to avoid compromising national security by providing that information to the applicant. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, that may give rise to most serious risks.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to a European decision made about six years ago. I should be grateful for his confirmation, but I think that he was referring to the case of Chahal.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was.
Lord Goldsmith: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that information. The case of chahal was the case that resulted in SIAC being set up, because the then procedure was, as the noble Lord rightly says, held to be inadequate because it did not provide the best opportunity for a judicial body to consider the material.
As I mentioned in my winding-up speech on Second Reading, the European Court of Human Rights drew attention to the existence of a Canadian model that it thought would solve the United Kingdom Government's problems. The Canadian model is the SIAC model. That is what was introduced as a result of the European Court of Human Rights saying that we could at least have something involving a special advocate procedure and a means of ensuring that material was considered. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose views on such matters are of enormous influence and value, that is a fair compromise. As I understood it, he supported the SIAC procedure when it came before Parliament.
Lord Brennan: Will my noble and learned friend assist us better to understand the framework of the Bill? I understand the argument to be that the amendments are unnecessary because the appeal procedure under Clause 25 gives effective protection to the person involved. In deciding the effectiveness of that protection, can he confirm that under Clause 25, when the commission decides whether or not there are reasonable grounds for the Secretary of State's decision, it determines that objectively, on the facts available to it? It does not ask whether the Minister was subjectively justified in coming to such a decision. That is an extremely important question that reflects the great argument in Liversidge v Anderson in the second world war. Do "reasonable grounds" mean objectively or subjectively assessed?
Lord Goldsmith: Liversidge v Anderson, which has already been referred to, concerned a set of rules without the SIAC procedure, a special advocate or any of the safeguards in the Bill. My noble friend asks about the effect of Clause 25. Yes, it is objective, but I must return to that in the context of later amendments that concern the issue. I hope that we can return to that at that stage.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, surely the decision in Rehman, part of which I cited on Second Reading, demonstrates that the commission is gravely discouraged by the Judicial Committee of this House from interfering in any way with the subjective view of the Home Secretary when he issues the certificate.
Lord Goldsmith: I disagree with the phrase, "the subjective view of the Secretary of State". It is not the subjective view of the Secretary of State, it is a view based on evidence and reasonable grounds.
I stand by what I said when winding-up the Second Reading debate, which is pertinent to the debate about judicial review versus the S1AC procedure. There is no question but that the observations that the Judicial Committee of this House made in the Rehman case would apply absolutely to judicial review. It said that when considering the question of whether this, that or the other piece of information all put together amount to reasonable grounds for believing that someone is a security risk, the view of the experienced Minister—who, what is more, is democratically accountable through Parliament—must be paid the greatest respect.
That does not mean that the commission, having looked at the matter, is not able to say, "This is not a justified point of view at all". There is a subtle distinction between saying that it is an objective decision which SIAC must take, and saying, which I do not accept, that it would not be right to pay enormous respect to the view already reached by the Secretary of State. However, it would examine the evidence on which that was based.
6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: To suggest to the Committee that because the Secretary of State is democratically elected he in some way administers more acceptable justice than is done in the High Court seems odd. It is perfectly plain, is it not, that under Clause 21 it is a wholly subjective decision of the Secretary of State. It may be taken on advice from intelligence, from his staff or whoever, but it is his own personal assessment, for which he takes responsibility. It is subjective. Surely, it is unrealistic to pretend that it could be objective. Could the noble and learned Lord deal with that?
Lord Goldsmith: I have been criticised by some for being over-generous in giving way, but I am happy to deal with all the questions. Perhaps I may respectfully remind the noble Lord that in winding up the Second Reading debate, the final words I used were intended to draw attention to the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, in the Rehman case. He said:
"in matters of national security, the cost of failure can be high. This seems to me to underline the need for the judicial arm of government to respect the decisions of ministers of the Crown on the question of whether support for terrorist activities in a foreign country constitutes a threat to national security. It is not only that the executive has access to special information and expertise in these matters. It is also that such decisions, with serious potential results for the community, require a legitimacy which can be conferred only by entrusting them to persons responsible to the community through the democratic process".
Those are not my words; those are the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann.
The only other point to deal with in relation to this issue is the question of timing as regards the provision of information. I have suggested to Members of the Committee that the highest probability is that the person detained will immediately apply to SIAC and will therefore receive material subject to the safeguards I have identified in the special advocate procedure. However, I am happy to tell the Committee that, although we do not believe that it is necessary to put anything on the face of the Bill, at the time a certificate is issued there will be provided for the suspected international terrorist an outline of the case against him to the extent that that can be done without risking the exposure of closed material. Therefore, there will be an indication at the time the certificate is there, and then when the appeal takes place the rules to which I have drawn attention will bite.
The Earl of Onslow: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. What he has just said seems to be important. The Government will provide the information required but they will not place the necessity on the face of the Bill. Why not? If you are going to do it, if you think it is right, why not put it on the face of the Bill? If you are not going to do so, it means only that you think you can duck and dive and weave a bit later.
Lord Goldsmith: I invite the noble Earl to consider what I have said in response to these amendments.
496
I have drawn attention to existing obligations which will apply and which will require, as the Bill stands, information to be provided. I had hoped that I was being helpful to Members of the Committee by indicating—
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may—
Lord Goldsmith: If the noble Earl will allow me first to finish the point, of course I shall then give way to him. Given the existence of the rules, I suggest that it is not necessary to add to the Bill. However, I hope that the assurance I have given, which is on the record and which will be noted by SIAC and others, will meet the one slight point which remains from the amendment; that is, the timing point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
I had hoped that my explanation was helpful. There are many other important matters to deal with in order to get the Bill right in the sense of hearing Members' concerns about it. I simply and respectfully hope that what I have said is sufficient to persuade Members of the Committee that the issue of the grounds, which it was right to raise, has been adequately covered. In those circumstances, I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he answer my question about whether the Secretary of State has power to issue a certificate when a person has already served his sentence for a terrorist offence and whether it would then be subject to judicial review?
Lord Goldsmith: I want to be clear about the question which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, poses. Would he be kind enough to repeat it? It is my fault entirely.
Lord Avebury: Yes. I was supposing that the person concerned had already served a sentence of imprisonment, had reached the end of that sentence and the Secretary of State decided that he was still a threat to national security. The Secretary of State then decided to issue a certificate in order to prolong that person's detention after the end of his sentence. In those circumstances, where the grounds on which the Secretary of State had reached his conclusion were obvious because he had been through a court of law, would that decision be subject to judicial review?
Lord Goldsmith: I am obliged to the noble Lord. First, everyone, whether or not they have served a sentence, would be in the same position; that is, the powers under Clause 21 of the Bill would apply. If the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds, a certificate could be issued.
As regards the procedure under those circumstances, it would be the same; that is, the SIAC procedure would apply rather than judicial review in the technical sense of the administrative court dealing with it.

497
As regards the question of whether information would be provided, it would come back to the question of whether that was sensitive information. The commission, under the rules to which I have drawn attention, would be able to judge whether the truth of the matter was that it was all information which the applicant knew already and therefore there was no reason why it should be withheld from him. Indeed, I would expect that to be the decision which the Secretary of State would make in any event. However, if the Secretary of State had good grounds for saying that the information was sensitive, that would be examined by the commission and it would decide whether or not it should be passed to the applicant. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Will the Attorney-General help me because I want to make sure that I have understood the position? As he will probably know, I am deeply dissatisfied about the absence of judicial review, but we shall return to that matter later. Has the noble and learned Lord just told the Committee that someone who has been charged, convicted and sentenced under what we will call "domestic" terrorism laws, in circumstances at the end of that sentence could then be pounced upon under the powers of this Bill? If that were the case, I should regard it as an absolute abuse of those powers.
Today, the Attorney-General has been at great pains, as he was on Monday, to tell the Committee that the only reason the Bill is needed is because there is insufficient evidence on which to take a case to court. Have I misunderstood what the Attorney-General has said?
Lord Goldsmith: I want to make three points in answer to my noble friend. First, I was responding to a hypothetical question that was being put quite fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I was not indicating that that was the situation I envisaged behind the principal purpose of the Bill. Secondly, in circumstances in which someone who does not have a right to remain here has been convicted of a serious offence, the normal course would be that the court would, in any event, order deportation. The problem is that even at the moment a person who is ordered to be deported by the court sometimes cannot be—and cannot be because we are not prepared to send him back to a place where they will be killed, executed or tortured. We have exactly this problem at the moment where a court of law has said that someone should go, but we will not let that person go because we respect their human rights. However, I suggest that we cannot allow them to roam free in our society if there are reasonable grounds for believing that they will commit terrorist acts that would gravely damage the people of this country.
With due respect to my noble friend, I do not consider that response to suggest in any way that there is an abuse here. Rather, I suggest that it demonstrates the limited nature of this part of the Bill. It deals with immigration controls and with the situation where
498
there is a right to deport someone not entitled to be in this country but in respect of whom, as verified by a judicial body, reasonable grounds have been established to believe that he poses a threat to our national security. Nevertheless, we could not deport him because we have regard to his right not to be sent back to a place where he may be killed or tortured.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: Before the Attorney-General finally resumes his seat, perhaps I may ask him why he is not more responsive to the suggestion put by my noble friend Lord Russell that the requirement to disclose the grounds for the decision which lead to certification should be placed on the face of the Bill. However, the Attorney-General is right to invoke the name of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose judgment in these matters I, too, very much respect.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Lester suggested that what was being proposed was a compromise. He did not suggest that it was a compromise incapable of further improvement. That is particularly the case in light of the consideration expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, regarding the limits of the role of the appointed advocate. It appears that, when reconsidering a review of the decisions reached by the Secretary of State, SIAC would be unlikely to come to a different conclusion, not only because of a natural sensitivity to the view of a responsible Secretary of State, but also because SIAC would not be able to hear from the subject his response to the case that has been made against him. If he is not able to communicate the charge or the circumstances surrounding it, then he cannot properly be informed to discharge the job of representation.
It is not a slight matter as to whether the requirement to disclose reasons is on the face of the Bill. It is very central.
Lord Goldsmith: The obligation to provide not only the reasons but also the material relied on by the Secretary of State to the commission and thenceforward to some extent to the applicant—I shall return to that point in due course—is included on the face of the Bill. It has been put into the Bill that the SIAC rules should apply, and those rules require that such information should be provided. No ambiguity whatever surrounds that point. Indeed, that was the point I sought to make in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Latterly I have sought to deal with a single and slightly different point; that is, whether at a slightly earlier moment in time the Secretary of State would undertake to provide a form of summary before the full information is provided as required by the statute. That is fundamental because, at the time when the appeal is brought, the Secretary of State is obliged to bring forward his case to SIAC. The only problem here is whether a part of that case could not be provided to the applicant because of sensitive issues of security. In those circumstances the fair compromise—I use again the words of the noble Lord. Lord Lester—is to do the

499
best one can. The information could not actually be given to the person involved because the sources who originally provided the information could then be threatened with death or perhaps the methods of surveillance would be discovered and thus rendered incapable of further use to protect the people of this country.
The fair compromise reached in the Chahal case and taken from the Canadian experience is the special independent advocate. He will be able to communicate with the applicant, although he cannot reveal any sensitive information that he may been given. That would defeat the object. I shall read out the details of his function, which are set out under Rule 7.4:
"The function of the special advocate is to represent the interests of the appellant by—

(a) making submissions to the Commission in any proceedings from which the appellant and his representative are excluded;

(b) cross-examining witnesses at any such proceedings;

(c) making written submissions to the Commission".

I recognise that that may be a second best approach, but it is the best that can be done in order to balance the need to protect sensitive security information against the need for SIAC to be given the best possible means of being able to judge whether the grounds on which the Secretary of State reached a decision were justified.
I stand absolutely by the comments I made the other evening. This is not a poor substitute for judicial review; it is better than judicial review. The noble Earl referred to the case heard by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, where evidence was heard in camera. I assume that that was a situation where the applicant was also present in camera because he was privy to the information. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the customary situation in the courts is that the only way in which sensitive information may be dealt with is for the courts to decide not to rely on it; they have no procedure in place to use such information without the applicant also seeing it. SIAC provides a way of achieving that objective.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble and learned Lord has concentrated, quite reasonably from his point of view, on the degree of protection that would be conferred by the use of these powers. Can he give the Committee a specific example of something that either would or would not have happened without the use of the new powers?
Lord Goldsmith: I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, put it very clearly in our previous debate when he asked what people would think of the Government if we had known that someone was roaming around who posed a threat, was potentially or actually planning terrorist
500
attacks and we allowed that to take place. Later people would comment, "You knew all about it, but you let it happen".
The Earl of Onslow: I have not asked the Attorney-General to repeat what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden; I have asked a specific question. The Attorney-General has advanced his argument and I think that the Committee is entitled to an answer.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to interrupt. However, does he not agree that perhaps we ought to get on with the amendment?
For reasons of economy, I shall not take long to make my remarks, but I should say that I have no intention of withdrawing the amendment. A fundamental principle is at stake in this which has not been addressed; that is, the question of judicial review. There it is, included in the amendment in black and white. I do not refer to SIAC but to judicial review. We have not even entered into the essence of that discussion, save that put forward with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, whose intervention was of crucial consonance on one aspect. To put it in simple terms, the representation of the client does not accord with the full requirements to which we are accustomed. Here I synthesise the noble Lord's argument. Furthermore, it does not accord with the way in which justice is administered on judicial review, and so on and so forth.
As I have said, there is certainly no question that the amendment will be withdrawn. I concede that there is no sense in playing with the concept put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, because I do not regard justice as administered on judicial review or by the High Court as a form of compromise. It may be that commercial arbitration is, but not justice administered on judicial review.
Whether or not it is fair as a compromise is totally beyond the point. I am concerned—and no one has said why it should be done—that the Bill excludes the jurisdiction of the judiciary in this area. I shall read and study, as a matter of courtesy and enlightenment, what the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have said today, and I shall come back to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Lord will remember that we are not dealing with his amendment but with the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Earl Russell: I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 104ZA.
Amendment No. 104ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 104, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 104.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 104A:
Page 10, line 39, leave out "international"
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment. It was spoken to with Amendment No. 103B, which has been determined by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 105A:
Page 10, leave out line 42 to end of line 2 on page 11.
The noble Baroness said: I move Amendment No. 105A only to learn what the Government have to say in relation to Amendments Nos. 107 and 110. I hope to be reassured that these government amendments deal with concerns which were raised at Second Reading in your Lordships' House and which were the subject of considerable debate by honourable Members—including the Secretary of State's Back-Benchers—in another place. It was felt that the link is far too widely drawn. It could, albeit inadvertently, draw in entirely innocent individuals who may be members of a group which appears, on the face of it, and to some of its members, entirely bone fide, whereas in fact it is a front for something much more sinister.
I reserve my right to come back on these amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 105A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must remind the Committee that, if the amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 106 and 107.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister rises to reply, perhaps I may thank him very warmly for Amendment No. 110. It meets an undertaking that he gave to me at Second Reading and I should like to thank him.
Lord Rooker: I can assure the noble Baroness that all my honourable friends in the other place are delighted with these two amendments. I hope that the members of the Select Committee are also delighted.
An issue was raised in regard to family members. We believe that Amendment No. 107, by removing the words,
"a person who is a member of or belongs to"—
Lord Elton: If the Minister will forgive me. I think we are a little adrift. My noble friend has moved Amendment No. 105A. Perhaps the noble Lord is firing off his speech a little too early by referring to Amendment No. 107.
Lord Rooker: It is grouped with Amendment No. 105A.
Lord Elton: I am sorry. I failed to mark the grouping.
Lord Rooker: I am not moving it because it is not the lead amendment. I am only speaking to it at the moment. I was on a real roller there.
502
There were genuine concerns about the links described in Clause 21(2), where the definition clearly could be too wide. There have been examples in the media. Osama bin Laden's distant family relatives, about ten times removed—who are estranged from him, who have denounced him, who have nothing to do with him—could clearly be covered by paragraph (c). It cannot be right for the definition to be as wide as that.
If Amendment No. 107 is agreed to, paragraph (c) will read:
"has links with an international terrorist group".
Amendment No. 110 seeks to insert a further paragraph below paragraph (c), which states:
"For the purposes of subsection (2)(c) a person has links with an international terrorist group only if he supports or assists it".
So the amendments seek to remove the remotest possible link—for example, connections through family, friends, school, business, or sitting next to someone on a bus—from the clause. It then goes on to define the link as someone who supports or assists a terrorist group.
I believe these two amendments will satisfy the concerns raised by the Select Committee, in the other place and in your Lordships' House in our earlier debates.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. We have got rid of what one might dare to call the weakest link. It gives us great pleasure to withdraw Amendment No. 105A and to welcome and support Amendments Nos. 107 and 110.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 11, line 1, leave out "a person who is a member of or belongs to"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 109A not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 11, line 8. at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c) a person has links with an international terrorist group only if he supports or assists it."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 11, leave out lines 12 and 13.
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment. It was spoken to with Amendment No. 103B and determined by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Deportation, removal, &c.]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 11, line 24, leave out from "terrorist" to end of line 29 and insert "if—

(a) his removal from the United Kingdom would violate international obligations not to subject him to the risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or the death penalty, or

(b) travel by him from the United Kingdom is not feasible."

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which seeks to define the meaning of Clause 22(1). As currently expressed in the Bill, the words refer to,
"a point of law which wholly or partly relates to an international agreement, or …a practical consideration",
as reasons why a terrorist cannot be removed from the United Kingdom.
I have read everything that has been written by the Government in relation to this clause, and on every occasion they have referred to the Article 3 prohibition on removing an individual to a regime which would subject him to the risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or the death penalty. In relation to the practical consideration., it has always been illustrated by the difficulties of deporting a detainee back to a particular country where he wants to go. I have not heard any other examples given. Instead of leaving this rather vague form of wording in this clause and in the linked part of Clause 23, the Government should spell out whether they have in mind any other area—other than Article 3 and other than travel arrangements.
My fear is this. If the wording is left as "a practical consideration", the Government may say to a detainee: "All right, you want to go back to a rogue state but, unfortunately, no plane flies there directly. You would have to change in Paris, or wherever. Therefore, we cannot deport you and we are going to subject you to indefinite detention". Is it the position that, if there is no direct flight, the detainee will remain subject to the provision in this clause? I just want to hear the answer to that point. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: Perhaps I may return to the wording in Clause 22(1) as it stands. It has been made clear by the Government that, where someone is a threat to national security and we cannot prosecute or extradite that person to a country that can prosecute, the Government's preference is to remove the person from the United Kingdom. Indeed, we currently do all that we can to find ways in which a person can be removed to his or her own country, or to a safe third country, consistently with our international obligations. That determination to find avenues of removal will not be diminished in any way by the taking of the detention powers in the Bill. Only after all the avenues for the removal of a suspected terrorist have been exhausted shall we look to fall back on the powers in Clauses 22 and 23.
504
As Clause 22(1) states, there are two particular types of barrier to removal: legal and practical. I draw the attention of the Committee to the words in Clause 22(1):
"the action cannot result in his removal from the United Kingdom because of",
one barrier or the other. It is a strong obligation: it is not that removal is not desirable but that he cannot he removed for that reason.
The Government believe that the wording in the Bill as drafted captures the barriers, which are the barriers that exist. To change that wording would add nothing and could be disadvantageous. That is obviously not to say that the noble Lord is not right in identifying, as his amendment seeks to do, the two particular circumstances that arise at present. It is certainly not the case that the clause would operate merely because the only way to get to the country for deportation was to change planes in Paris. It is not about direct flights. Indeed, the situation at present, as I understand it, is that there are circumstances where people are removed and where there has to be a somewhat more circuitous route to get to the country where they have to go. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on that point.
The first part of the amendment takes its wording from Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as the first ground. That is the ground that the present impediment to removal on legal grounds. But there is the possibility that our international obligations might to some extent change. I know of nothing at the moment that might bring that about. If those international obligations prevented the preferred course of deportation, then the wording would cover that. But there is nothing that I am aware of at present that is envisaged by that. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with that assurance and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: There are certain countries to which we do not deport failed asylum seekers at present. Among those are Afghanistan and Somalia. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong. Clearly, there would be practical difficulties in sending people back to either country. It is not that it is impossible to imagine travel arrangements to either—theoretically, people could travel to a neighbouring country and cross the border on foot, as many do. But the Government, in their wisdom, have decided that it is not fair to send anyone back to the conditions that obtain in those countries. I suppose that we could spell out in more detail what criteria the Government will adopt once these powers come into effect. Presumably they will be similar to those that are exercised at present.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the noble and learned Lord a question about the situation of Afghan citizens. A case is presently before the court where it was proposed to issue deportation notices against Afghans and it was not possible to proceed because the Immigration Appeal Tribunal decided not to entertain the application by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then applied for judicial review

505
of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal's decision on the grounds that it was its business to decide only whether a deportation order should be made and not the question of destination. The Secretary of State had already said that he would not send that person back to Afghanistan. He could not specify any alternative third country because, although great efforts had been made by the Home Office, no third country had been found which would receive him. Has that case been determined? If the Immigration Appeal Tribunal continues to refuse to hear deportation cases where the Secretary of State is not able to specify a destination, that will make it difficult for the powers in this clause to be used.
Lord Goldsmith: I understand that the case has not been concluded. As regards the powers in the Bill with which we are concerned, where by reason of legal impediment or practical consideration we cannot remove a person although we should like to do so, I respectfully suggest that in such circumstances what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said may be further support for leaving the wording of the Bill as it stands, rather than trying over-prescriptively to define it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful for the explanation that has been given in relation to the travel arrangements; namely, that the Bill does not require the existence of a direct flight to the place to which the alleged terrorist can go.
I raised the matter because it struck me as rather odd that a person coming to this country who is suspected of being a leading member of Al'Qaeda—he is only suspected; it cannot proved—can be detained under the Home Secretary's certificate; and he can say, "You can't detain me any longer. I want to go back to where I came from", which may be some rogue state in the Middle East. The Government say, "Oh, that's fine. Goodbye. We'll put you on a plane. Change in Paris, or wherever, and that will see you home". So I am glad to hear that difficulties in travel or circuitous routes will not be used as an excuse indefinitely to detain a person in those circumstances.
I asked whether there were any other illustrations of the point of law as regards the practical considerations set out in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 22(1). The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has not been able to point to any. In those circumstances, I wonder why he cannot accept the wording as it stands. Even if there were a change in international obligations, I am sure that the United Kingdom would still be required not to send any person to a place where they would be subjected to a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
I shall come back to the amendment, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Detention]:
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 12, line 24, at end insert—
"(3) This section shall apply only if the Secretary of State has taken all reasonable steps to avoid the necessity for detention; and such steps shall include the consideration of bringing a prosecution under existing criminal laws or finding alternative countries as removal destinations (or both).
(4) Detention shall only be lawful as long as the Secretary of State continues to take all reasonable steps in accordance with subsection (3).
(5) The longer the period of any detention under this section, the greater the requirement shall be for the Secretary of State to show that such detention remains strictly necessary in the interests of national security."
The noble Lord said: The amendment would not delete the provisions of the clause. As the Secretary of State has draconian powers, we thought that certain safeguards were needed. We are proposing that the Secretary of State should ensure that every reasonable step is taken to avoid unreasonable detention, because that is what we are dealing with. We suggest that one step should be the consideration of bringing a prosecution under existing criminal laws or finding alternative countries as removal destinations. That is a reasonable request. Further, we suggest that the detention should be considered lawful only as long as the Secretary of State continues to take all reasonable steps in accordance with subsection (3).
The longer the period of detention under the clause—it could go on for a considerable time—the greater the requirement for the Secretary of State to show that it remains strictly necessary in the interests of national security. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I sympathise with the purport of the amendment, but we believe that the first part, in relation to reasonable steps, has already been covered and we shall look to the Minister to reassure us that, on the second aspect, he will always do as the amendment suggests.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Dholakia, for producing this amendment and the next but one, to which it is clearly related. It meets a number of concerns about what appears to be an unnecessarily wide range of powers, centralised in the hands of the Secretary of State. The amendment would add an important dimension of restraint to the Bill.
Subsection (3) would ensure that the Secretary of State could not act summarily, putting the measure in the context of existing law. Subsection (4) would ensure that the Secretary of State had to be seen to be acting constructively on behalf of the detainees. Subsection (5) would ensure that any detention was not normally indefinite.
The amendment would meet the concerns to which I have referred without blunting the real aspirations of the Bill. It has a great deal of support from these Benches.
The Earl of Sandwich: I have a more general question for the Minister. Some of us find that wider questions are raised simply because this part of the Bill deals with immigration and asylum. Noble Lords will remember that when we considered the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, we asked for written reasons for the detention of those who were kept for long periods of 12 to 18 months. That is not indefinite detention, but it is not an inconsiderable length of time. What happened to Part 3 of that Act, which provided for automatic hearings for all immigration and asylum detainees?
We have had some answers, but they have been in the form of a checklist. It is surprising that in 2001 we are not even giving our immigration and asylum detainees the reasons for their detention. A checklist is not an adequate statement under any international convention. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at that problem, although I recognise that it is wide of the clause.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I would be rather more enthusiastic about supporting the amendment had it not been for the earlier answer from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to a question that I put concerning the power of the Secretary of State to continue detaining somebody after the end of his sentence. If the amendment were passed and the Secretary of State leaned over backwards to find some means of prosecuting such an individual, at the end of the sentence the Secretary of State could still continue the suspect's detention ad infinitum on the ground that he still believed him to be a threat to national security.
The situation reminds me of the South African 90-day laws, under which somebody could be detained for a certain time and then have his detention prolonged further at the end of that time. We now learn that, after the person has finished his sentence, the Secretary of State can prolong that sentence by the certification procedure, as the noble and learned Lord has explained.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, looks rather unsteady in his place. Perhaps he wants to intervene.
Lord Rooker: I thought that the noble Lord was sitting down and I was going to respond, but it appears that he had not finished.
Lord Avebury: I had not finished. I was going to make a further important point. What happens when a certificate has been issued by the Secretary of State because the Government do not believe that there are sufficient grounds for the CPS to have a reasonable chance of securing a conviction, but part way through the period of detention under the certification order, further evidence comes to light that leads the Secretary of State to believe that a conviction could be secured? Is the certificate then withdrawn so that the case can be handed over to the CPS and the individual can be prosecuted as he would have been if that evidence had been available in the first place? If so, will the Minister say something further about the revelation by the
508
noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that after the end of the sentence, another certificate could be issued to prolong that sentence still further in an administrative way? A person who had been certificated and then prosecuted when evidence became available could serve his sentence and then have a second certificate issued against him by the Secretary of State on the ground that he was still a threat to national security, enabling his detention to be prolonged ad infinitum.
The Earl of Listowel: On a point of information, will those detained under this arrangement be held in similar circumstances to those on remand or to those on sentence?
Lord Blackwell: On a point of interpretation, the amendment and the clause read as if detention is an alternative if removal from the country is not possible. I see nothing in Part 4 that refers to the citizenship of the individual. Part 4 is entitled "Immigration and Asylum". Does that mean that the procedures will be relevant only for a non-UK citizen?
Lord Rooker: To answer the last question, the answer is yes—as I tried to labour in the previous debate. This measure is solely concerned with people whom we want to remove from the country if we cannot prosecute them. We cannot remove United Kingdom citizens from the United Kingdom.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked where people will be detained. I can only repeat the answer that I gave him the other night. Persons who are detained under the procedure, if any, will not be held on the immigration detention estate. There are five immigration removal centres, previously detention centres. The few people there are detained prior to removal. The chances are that persons detained under the new procedure will be in high security prisons. Such persons will be suspected international terrorists. They will not be people who have absconded from the Immigration Service, but those who are "copper-bottom" suspected of major offences. If they choose not to leave the country or cannot do so and are detained, they will be locked up in a suitable institution—a prison.
Lord Monson: I do not think that the Minister understood my noble friend's question. He was asking whether detainees would be held under gaol conditions or bail conditions—which are more relaxed. The location could still be a high security prison. It is a question of the conditions under which detainees will be held in such a prison.
Lord Rooker: I cannot answer that in a technical sense. The detainees will not have been convicted but will be held under a procedure whereby they can walk out of the prison any day they choose, provided that they can leave the country. To that extent, the procedure is more relaxed than being locked up. We do not say where prisoners are held because that is a privacy issue, but such information will not be kept

509
secret from their legal advisers and relatives, who will be able to visit. Detainees will be deprived of their liberty, but in a unique situation.
We have not yet made a decision on Part III of the Bail Act 1976 and I regret the delay.
I can now tell the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that detainees will be held under remand conditions.
The thinking behind the amendments is understandable, We have made it clear on a number of occasions that detention under Part 4 will only be used for a limited number of people, where no other response is possible. If we consider that there is sufficient admissible evidence to bring a prosecution, we will seek to do so at any point in the process. If we can prosecute, we will. That is our first priority. Our second priority is to remove the individual. It may be that one process is used, then evidence becomes available. One has to assume that we would take action on those lines.
Lord Avebury: I thank the Minister for clarifying that point. I understand that if part-way through the individual's detention under certificate it becomes possible to prosecute him, that will be done. Will the time spent in detention under certificate count against the subsequent sentence?
Lord Rooker: A certificate can be revoked at any time. That is for the Secretary of State. I assume that detention under certificate will be taken into account on the ground of natural justice, where someone has been locked up and deprived of his liberty. I cannot speculate on cases, but that would be the general view, I hope, of the western liberal democracy that we are trying to protect in this clause. That is what this is about. It is all about protecting our right to make such decisions, which some people are trying to take away by the use of international terrorism.
We shall prosecute if there is admissible evidence. We shall do all we can to find a way of removing someone from the country, including an assessment of possible safe third countries. We shall, of course, abide by our international obligations, as the Attorney-General has made clear. I hope that there is no doubt about the Government's sincerity.
A separate question is whether it should be stated as a requirement of the Bill that the Secretary of State will not detain someone under Clause 23 unless, for example, he has done all that he reasonably can to bring about a criminal prosecution. That sounds seductive but if there is to be such a test, the implication is that SIAC will review the Secretary of State's compliance with that test and others set out in Amendments Nos. 114A and 114C.
We strongly argue that the question of whether or not a criminal prosecution is to be brought is not for SIAC or within its competence but is for the prosecuting authorities. Some have questioned SIAC's competence to consider detention matters under Part 4. The demands made upon SIAC by the Bill as drafted are ones with which it is eminently competent to deal.
510
I do not see SIAC or any other court as an appropriate body for making judgments about the sufficiency of evidence upon which to bring a prosecution. That matter is for the Crown Prosecution Service. It will already have reached the view that there is insufficient evidence and that it is not in the public interest to prosecute.
Independent discretion is an issue of constitutional importance and is covered by the guidelines applying to the Crown Prosecution Service. Such discretion is totally inappropriate for a body such as SIAC, which has no expertise in the criminal field. The implications of a body such as SIAC deciding that there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution, notwithstanding the objection of the police and CPS, would taint the individual with a "guilty" label before he or she even got to court.
The fact that a criminal court can dismiss a prosecution on the basis of insufficient evidence is a right and proper safeguard for the accused. However, to give a non-criminal court the power to influence the bringing of a prosecution in the face of police and CPS objections, which is implicit, is totally different. Under the amendment, it might be that SIAC would not be proposing to the Secretary of State that a prosecution should be undertaken but stating that there were still avenues to be explored before that option should be ruled out. The constitutional question that that raises might be less stark, hut the same principle applies: those matters are not for SIAC.
I make it absolutely clear that if removal were possible now, we would be removing such persons. If removal were a realistic possibility, we would detain under the existing immigration detention powers while we investigated the possibility of removal.
It is unpleasant to have to appreciate that currently, foreign nationals who are charged, prosecuted and convicted of a serious criminal offence such as rape or murder, and for whom the court issues a recommendation for deportation, may not be liable for deportation after serving their sentence if we are unable to return them to their country of nationality. If such persons have served their sentence and we cannot send them back, what do we do? It is distasteful, but we have to let them out. We cannot remove them—and it is known that we cannot remove them—because the courts have already said that if one is knowingly not processing a removal application or passport and travel documents and there is no country for the individual to go to, the authorities have no right to detain.
Occasionally when persons finish their sentence, we do detain them because there is a good prospect of removing them. That may take a while. Some countries are a bit dodgy. Sometimes it is a question of getting the necessary travel documents from the country concerned. That is not always a five-minute job.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: May I try to help the Minister?
Noble Lords: Oh.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I just want to remind my noble friend and the Committee that we are in the process of considering double jeopardy. Were that to be introduced, it could deal with the exact circumstances that my noble friend described and the difficulties that arise from them.
7 p.m.
Lord Rooker: It is still an issue that we cannot deport people who are nationals of certain countries, even if they have committed the most heinous of crimes. That is the situation we are in. We are trying to avoid that situation by this legislation. But that is our difficulty in relation to international terrorists.
My points related to the general criminal fraternity. But that is the situation. When listening to Members of the Committee, one could be misled into thinking that we do not lock anybody up after they have served their detention and prior to their removal. We do. But we have to be going through the removal process at the time they complete their sentence. If the courts, the judiciary and the solicitors know that no country will take the individual involved, then they are released immediately because we have no powers to detain people in those circumstances.
The amendment asks that the Secretary of State,
"has taken all reasonable steps".
I can assure Members of the Committee that the Secretary of State will have taken "all reasonable steps" to deport people and will have been through that process before issuing the certificate. We would not want to go down that route. If we could not prosecute we could get them out of the country. It is only because we cannot get them out of the country that we issue the certificate in the first place.
Therefore I understand the motivation behind the amendment. But the Committee would be misguided to accept it. I hope that, in the light of my probably inadequate explanation—I put it in a fairly stark way—the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for his response to my question. The prisoners will be on remand and will therefore be able to have more frequent visits from their families. As was said in the Second Reading debate, that will probably be mainly in maximum security prisons.
A concern has been raised with me that when a closed visit takes place—there is no direct physical access to the inmate—a woman may be strip-searched twice before reaching the prisoner. We may well be talking about Muslim women in this regard. As we are discussing people who are detained, will the Minister undertake to look carefully at that issue and see whether changes can be made?
Lord Rooker: The rules are the rules and everybody will be treated exactly the same. Those people will be locked up. I have to warn the noble Earl that there are not that many suitable prisons. It will do no good saying we have to put them in local prisons, because it will not work that way. These are highly refined
512
international terrorists and will be detained in suitable prison accommodation with suitable restrictions and constraints on those who visit them. But they will be held under remand conditions. A unique operation will be taking place and hopefully it will not apply to many people. However, there will be a few.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, it is not a minor point to say that he talks about "highly refined international terrorists". But they are only suspected of terrorism and we should not forget that in this debate.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for his explanation. Perhaps I may remind him that he constantly bases his case on the premise of international terrorists. But at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that during the Gulf War almost all the people detained—Palestinians, Arabs and Iraqis—were eventually found not to be terrorists at all and had to be paid compensation.
I shall study the Minister's response carefully because there are some difficulties in interpreting many of his remarks. I shall read Hansard carefully and, if we are still not happy, we may come back to this matter on Report. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Certification: appeal]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 114B:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) A suspected international terrorist who has appealed under subsection (1) shall, within 7 days of the appeal being lodged with the Commission, be brought before the Commission for the purpose of the Commission giving directions as to the hearing of the appeal."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 114B is to ensure that, where somebody is certified as a suspected terrorist and therefore detained, and submits an appeal to SIAC, they are brought before SIAC within seven days of their appeal being lodged. Its purpose is to ensure that a suspected terrorist is brought before a judicial body within a reasonable time of entering the appeal.
Amendment No. 114B is based on a recommendation by Justice, which made a reference in its background notes to the case in the European Court of Human Rights of Aksoy v Turkey, where it was held that, although there was a genuine state of emergency, the fact that a person who had been detained was not brought before a judicial body within 14 days entitled that person to complain of a breach of human rights. It held that the period of 14 days was excessively long.
The focus of this amendment, therefore, is to ensure that the period before the suspected terrorist is brought before the commission is no more than seven days. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett—Amendment No. 114D—says that not only

513
should they be brought before the commission, but also that the appeals should be heard within seven days.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Would the noble Lord kindly do me the favour of hearing the argument before he pronounces on whether or not he likes my amendment?
Lord Goodhart: I have to explain why I am putting forward an amendment which is different from that of the noble Lord. Perhaps he would like to treat his amendment as being grouped with mine. He could then put his argument and I could come back to it after the Minister has spoken.
In ordinary criminal procedure there is often a lengthy period between somebody being charged and detained, and the time at which the trial is heard. Subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has to say, in a considerable number of cases that would apply to the SIAC procedure as well. But it is important that the person who is in detention should be brought before the judicial body rapidly; that the judicial body should be able to give directions quickly. Obviously the hearing should be as soon as is reasonably practicable. In an exceptional case, where there was strong evidence that the detainee should not have been detained at all—clear evidence of misidentification or something of that kind—then no doubt the commission could even give directions to have a hearing on the spot.
Amendments of this kind are important and necessary if we are to avoid being in breach of the Human Rights Act, in respect of which the derogation does not itself apply. The fact that there has been a derogation authorising the detention does not relieve the authorities from the necessity of seeing that the detainee is brought before the relevant judicial body with all reasonable speed, as the Aksoy case makes clear. I beg to move.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Just so there is no misunderstanding, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, means and agree with him. But my amendment is on an entirely different, though related, matter.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise simply to support Amendment No. 114B. We would like to hear the Minister's response and hope he will give cogent reasons if he is not minded to accept the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith: Amendment No. 114B would require SIAC to convene within seven days of the lodging of an appeal to give directions as to the hearing. There is nothing particularly objectionable in that. My point is that it should be for SIAC to determine its own timetable.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, makes: that there is a human rights obligation. I imagine that he has in mind Article 5(4) which would require that the lawfulness of detention
514
should be decided speedily by the court. The important issue is that SIAC will be resourced adequately to ensure compliance with that obligation.
Once the Bill is passed there will be much for SIAC for to do. There will be bail applications—one of the matters provided for under the Bill—appeals against certification and appeals which will no doubt include separate direction hearings against immigration decisions.
While recognising the overriding obligations which would apply to SIAC as well as a public authority, it would not be right to impose an obligation to convene simply to give directions for a hearing. Of course, SIAC might decide that it wanted to do so but that would be for it to decide fully recognising the obligations, as I am sure they would, under Article 5(4). For that reason, I resist the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is not prepared to accept the amendment. He plainly understands that if SIAC does not act speedily—I think that seven days is likely to be regarded as a maximum for the initial directions hearing—this country will undoubtedly face serious problems with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Goldsmith: If the noble Lord will kindly give way, having seen the appeal and the Secretary of State's reasons, SIAC may take the view that there is no need for a directions hearing. It may want to say that there shall be a full hearing in five or perhaps 10 days. To put on the face of the Bill an obligation that it should convene a directions hearing could impose an obligation on it which would simply add to its and others' burdens.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that elucidation. He refers to going straight to a full hearing. It is necessary to deal with that very quickly. If the hearing is to be deferred for a matter of some weeks or even months, there must be an arrangement for bringing the detainee before the court. It is clear that a judicial body must be seized of the matter very quickly because that is plainly the case with criminal proceedings. In detention proceedings that is no less important.
I do not wish to press the matter. The point has been made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Before I call Amendment No. 114C, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 114D.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 114C:
Page 13, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) On an appeal the Commission must cancel the certificate if—

(a) it considers there are insufficient grounds for a belief of the kind referred to in section 21(1)(a) or (b);

515

(b) it considers that the issuing of the certificate was not in accordance with the law, or that the Secretary of State should have exercised his discretion differently;

(c) it considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued; or

(d) the Secretary of State has not taken all reasonable steps to avoid the need for detention."

The noble Lord said: This is another amendment on certification and appeal. We suggest further safeguards against the substantial powers of the Home Secretary. We propose to include in the clause that the commission must cancel the certificate if,
"it considers that the issuing of the certificate was not in accordance with the law, or that the Secretary of State should have exercised his discretion differently",
and if,
"the Secretary of State has not taken all reasonable steps to avoid the need for detention".
I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: Like the previous amendment, this amendment is about restraint and is to be welcomed. If it is not pressed, I hope that the conversations alluded to earlier between the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the Minister will take place.
The removal of the word "suspicion" in Clause 25(2)(a) places the burden on the word "belief" which one hopes connotes a more positive approach. More importantly, the proposed paragraphs (b) and (d) make requirements on the Secretary of State which not only seem proper and just but will send out welcome signals to those of us who are in regular contact with asylum seekers.
The amendment meets the concerns of those like myself who believe that anti-terrorism legislation is right but are suspicious when it sometimes gives the impression of wanting to strain the existing rights of asylum seekers. In saying that, I echo the earlier intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. We are talking about suspected terrorists.
Baroness Buscombe: I, too, welcome the amendment. It appears eminently sensible. As the right reverend Prelate says, it sends out all the right signals and in that sense would be reassuring.
Lord Goldsmith: Amendment No. 114C is concerned with the basis upon which SIAC can cancel on appeal a certificate issued under Clause 21 that a person is a suspected international terrorist. Part of it relates back to Amendment No. 114A which we have already discussed. I shall indicate that in a moment.
Perhaps I may indicate what the appeal to SIAC is about. As is clear from Clause 25, it is about the certificate. The issue for SIAC is about the certificate. The word "reasonable" was included in another place in Clause 25(2)(a). The reasonable test was placed on the Secretary of State when issuing a certificate under Clause 21. That is why Clause 25(2)(a) states that on an appeal the commission must cancel the certificate if,
"it considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind referred to in section 21(1)(a) or (b)".
516
Having placed such a test on the Secretary of State, noble Lords may think it entirely right that SIAC should consider the reasonableness of the belief and suspicion required to justify the making of the certificate. It is plain that the existing Bill imposes on SIAC a requirement to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief.
The amendment proposes a somewhat different test. I take it in two stages. First, paragraph (d) of the amendment relates back to the points addressed in Amendment No. 114A by my noble friend the Minister. That deals with the question whether the Secretary of State has taken all reasonable steps to avoid the need for detention. He indicated why the Government take the view that it is not right on the face of the Bill to impose that obligation on the Secretary of State notwithstanding that those steps will be taken. He indicated the difficulty, for example, of giving SIAC the obligation to decide that a criminal prosecution should take place even though the prosecuting authorities consider it inappropriate to do so—for example, because the evidence is not there. To include the proposed paragraph (d) would give rise to all the difficulties to which my noble friend referred.
Paragraphs (a) to (c) might be seen as a re-working of the two provisions contained at present in Clause 25(2)(a) and (b) which state:
"On an appeal the Commission must cancel the certificate if … it considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind referred to … or it considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued".
The Government's view is that the wording in Clause 25 is preferable to the wording which is proposed in the amendment, even though, as I have indicated, there is a considerable overlap between the two. I address the following points.
The amendment seeks to substitute the expression,
"insufficient grounds for a belief of the kind referred to",
for the words,
"no reasonable grounds for a belief".
The test which the Secretary of State accepts—and which was imposed—is that his belief in the risk and suspicion of a person being an international terrorist should be reasonable. He should reasonably believe that. I suggest that it is therefore entirely appropriate that SIAC should track the same concept and not introduce another concept which will only give rise to confusion as to what is the right test. Reference has already been made to the House of Lords' judgment in the Rehman case setting out the general approach which SIAC should take when considering what respect to accord to the Secretary of State's decision.
I recognise that the words in paragraph (b) have been drawn from Section 4 of the Special Immigration Appeals Act. That is the section which deals with the determination of appeals by SIAC under the 1997 Act. Of course I understand the proposal to replicate the provision here. However, I have already suggested that the wording that has been chosen by the draftsmen of reasonableness in subsection (2)(a) of Clause 25 tracks the wording in subsection (1) of Clause 21. That is the wording which best fits the structure of the Bill.

517
There are some differences between the matters which SIAC will consider under the Bill and those that it would consider under an ordinary appeal. I have emphasised that under these powers SIAC is considering the certificate. Therefore, I suggest it is entirely appropriate that the test that it applies should mirror the test which the Secretary of State has to apply.
I mention one other matter which may be relevant to this discussion and could be relevant to the discussion we shall have on Amendment No. 119. Subsection (2)(b) of Clause 25 provides that SIAC is to cancel the certificate—again I emphasise the word "certificate"—where it considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued. What we had in mind in putting that forward was to ensure that SIAC would have the powers available in a traditional judicial review to cancel the certificate, for example, on procedural irregularity grounds. The provision is not intended to cover the wider issues which are mentioned, for example, in paragraph (d) of the noble Lord's amendment—I have already dealt with that—because those are not matters which would arise on the consideration of the certificate.
I hope that with that explanation of why the words which have been chosen in subsection (2)(a) of Clause 25—the Committee may feel that it is a strong test:
"it considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind referred to in section 21(1)(a) or (b)"—
adequately and properly reflect the judicial scrutiny of the reasonableness of the Secretary of State under Clause 21, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister and am grateful for the explanation he has offered. I shall certainly discuss the matter with the people who suggested the amendment to us and, if necessary, I may discuss the matter further with the Minister. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale moved Amendment No. 114D:
Page 13, line 4, after "appeal" insert ", which shall be heard within seven days,"
The noble Lord said: I remind the Committee that this amendment also concerns an appeal against certification of someone as an international terrorist who faces, as a result of that—the Minister was kind enough to make that clear—indefinite imprisonment. I say in passing that I consider the word "detention" a euphemism; we are going to lock someone up. I understand the reasons for that, but none the less we should be absolutely clear what we are talking about.
On my reading, this part of the Bill sets no time limit for the hearing of such an appeal against certification. I share the concerns of the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association that that may run the risk of being a breach of Article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In any event, whether
518
or not that is the case, given that this is an appeal against indefinite imprisonment by a person who has neither been formally charged nor tried and convicted, I think it is even more important that there is the earliest possible hearing by SIAC of an appeal when it is lodged and that a time limit should be imposed.
I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made in connection with his amendment on this matter; that is, that it may appear that we seek to rush things, if I can put it that way. However, it is the person who is imprisoned who is responsible for the timing as regards lodging the appeal. He or she would take all steps with his or her legal advisers properly to prepare that appeal so that there need be no delay at that end. SIAC may have already carried out one of the six-monthly reviews, so it will be familiar with the arguments of the Home Secretary for reaching the decision to sign the certificate. Any argument that the provision would not assist the imprisoned person I do not think can be substantiated.
A further argument in favour of the measure is one the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General made clear earlier today; that is, that a foreign national who has been charged, tried, convicted, sentenced and has completed that sentence and would normally then be deported but who cannot be deported could then be caught by the provisions of Clause 21. In other words, having been through the courts and served the sentence imposed, because it is the opinion of the Home Secretary that that person still represents a real and present danger, he could then be imprisoned indefinitely beyond the sentence. That is another strong argument for imposing a time limit by which SIAC must hear these appeals. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will take this matter seriously, but I really do not feel that it is safe in these serious circumstances where we have taken people's liberty away from them for reasons we all understand that it should be left simply to SIAC to decide whether it will hear an appeal in a matter of days, weeks or, if it is the summer holidays, months. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I was going to ask the noble Lord the following question before he sat down, but perhaps I can address it to the Minister. In the particular case which the noble Lord discussed towards the end of his remarks where a person has been tried, convicted and sentenced, has served his sentence and then at the end of that process the Secretary of State issues a certificate and the detention is prolonged, there is no excuse whatsoever for any delay in a SIAC hearing, because the Secretary of State will already have taken into consideration before the end of the sentence the fact that the person represents a threat to the security of the country and he will have decided to issue a certificate. He may not even necessarily wait until the end of the sentence. After all, in cases where a person reaches the end of a sentence and a deportation notice is issued, the prisoner knows that before he gets to the end of the sentence. However, in the past—I do not know whether this is still the case—the deportation notices were not issued sufficiently far in advance of the

519
person reaching the end of his sentence for him to consult his legal advisers and take the necessary action, if he decided to do so, to resist the deportation notice.
I am quite certain that the Secretary of State, knowing that that person is coming to the end of his sentence, will have reviewed the matter and will have decided to issue a certificate. There is no conceivable reason why he should not do so before the end of the sentence, why SIAC should not then take the matter promptly under its consideration and why the hearing should not be held as soon as possible after the end of the sentence. That is a case in which the seven days proposed by my noble friend would certainly be very reasonable for a substantive hearing and not only for the preliminary hearing on directions.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will assure us that in such cases SIAC will, indeed, do as I suggest and that there will be no delay whatever between the end of a person's sentence and his appeal being heard before the commission.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I assure my noble friend Lord Corbett that I take these issues seriously. I take very seriously our obligations under the European convention. That is why the Government are opposed to the proposal put forward by the Benches opposite that, instead of taking this course, we should send people back to places where they could be killed or subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. We also take very seriously the obligation under Article 5 of the convention that there should be a speedy determination.
I believe that I can make that point best by responding to the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He asked whether we could assure the Committee that SIAC would act in a particular way. The whole point of having an independent court is that it is for the independent court to act. I have no doubt that SIAC would want, and in any event is obliged, to act in accordance with the European convention. It is a public authority.
With respect, I believe that it would be wrong to impose an obligation on SIAC to hear an appeal within seven days, apparently even if the applicant was not ready for it. That is the effect of the obligation as it would be amended. That may be totally contrary to the interests of the applicant. The applicant may want time to ensure that he, his representative and the special advocate are able to put forward properly the strongest case against the issuing of a certificate. Therefore, I suggest that, while the reasons for proposing it are entirely understandable, imposing what appears to be a "quick into court" to obtain a determination may in fact have the opposite effect.
Perhaps I may make two other points. I understand why my noble friend does not like the language which is used. However, I remind him of two important facts. First, there is a sunset clause. That means that there is a finite end to the power, quite apart from the fact that the power must return to Parliament after 15 months and then each year for affirmative resolution.
520
Constant reviews are provided automatically under the Bill. But, above all, the big difference between this proposal and imprisonment is that, if the person detained wishes to leave and can find somewhere to go which will take him, he is free to go. That is not the case in relation to imprisonment, and it is a very important distinction. It is only because we cannot deport such people that we must turn to this alternative proposal.
Perhaps I may also pick up on another point because it has been referred to several times. Earlier, I responded to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the position of someone who had been a convicted terrorist. I hope that I responded frankly and openly about the theory of what would apply under the Bill. However, as to the practicality of it. I know of no cases where this is presently envisaged. If someone is convicted as an international terrorist, the strong likelihood is that the sentence wit be long. But that will be for the courts to determine.
In practice, a situation may arise in which, after a person has been served, evidence will still be made available. I do not know whether this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will still be in force at that stage. If it is and if there is still evidence persuading not only the Secretary of State, if I may pick up on what my noble friend said, but also SIAC—the case would be subject to a SIAC review—that that person remained a threat to national security and retained links to international terrorism, then in theory that could apply.
I add one further point. It is, of course, possible that the criminal proceedings could have had excluded from them on the grounds that they were too sensitive to be relied upon in criminal proceedings sensitive information which, if it had been adduced, could have led to more serious charges. Therefore, if I understood it correctly, it is not, as it were, the double jeopardy point. It may be quite different information which has not formed part of a sentence imposed by the court. However, I was responding to a theoretical position. I hope that the reason for these powers has been clearly expressed.
However, with regard to the amendment, the requirement for SIAC to hear an appeal within seven days places on it an obligation which may be disadvantageous to the applicant. It is unnecessary because Article 5.4 of the European convention places such an obligation, and the speed of the hearing will be determined in all the circumstances of the case. There are cases where a longer period of time will be entirely appropriate. Previously I mentioned that it would be a matter of days. There may well be cases where a longer period than that would be entirely appropriate. But it should be left to SIAC to determine. We should not impose a time limit upon it. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Elton: I want to raise a small point. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can confirm that, at the point of expiry of these clauses under the sunset clause, anyone in detention under those provisions would automatically be released. Is that right?
Lord Goldsmith: Yes, I so confirm.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is still the case that a person who is convicted of a terrorist offence would necessarily serve a very long sentence. Is it not a fact that, under this Bill, "international terrorist" means a person who is a member of, or belongs to, an international terrorist group? Therefore, if someone has been convicted merely of membership, let us say, of the PKK or the LTTE, then he might receive a short sentence on those grounds. At the end of that sentence, the Secretary of State might take the view that he was a threat to our security and issue a certificate. Therefore, this is not a situation which we can necessarily guarantee will occur only 15 or 20 years down the line, as the noble and learned Lord implied.
I know that no one is being prosecuted at present, in spite of the Terrorism Act 2000, simply for being a member of an organisation. In fact, many people have demonstrated outside the Home Office wearing T-shirts displaying the insignia of the various terrorist organisations proscribed under the 2000 Act without the police taking any notice. There have been crowds in Trafalgar Square where people have acknowledged and boasted of their membership of terrorist organisations without the police turning a hair. But in the future more strict application of the Terrorism Act 2000 may be enforced by the prosecuting authorities. We cannot tell.
Therefore, I believe that the hypothesis on which the noble and learned Lord based his reply—that is, that we do not have to consider this matter until some time in the distant future—may not be strictly true.
Lord Goldsmith: I was trying to respond to the hypothesis as I understood it from the noble Lord. However, I invite recollection of this important point: it is not membership of a terrorist organisation that gives rise to these proposed powers; it is the fact that the person has no right to be in this country, is the subject of proper immigration control requiring that person to be deported but he cannot be deported because of the impediments that we have described—and, critically, that that person is reasonably believed to be a threat to national security. The tough question that must be asked when that person is reasonably believed to be a national security threat, whether he has already served a sentence for shop-lifting or for something else, is: is it right that that person should roam free if we cannot deport him as the law would otherwise require?
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General for the way in which he dealt with the amendment. He tempted me when he said that imprisonment in the generally understood meaning of the word is not involved because the person concerned can walk away. I shall weary neither him nor the Committee with details on that point, except to say that it is fanciful to think that it will be easy for someone who is branded and imprisoned as an international terrorist to pick up the phone to speak to the Australians, French, Italians
522
or Canadians, and say, "Hi. The Brits say that I am an international terrorist. Can I come and live with you?". There will be real problems in that regard.
I tried to anticipate what I thought my noble and learned friend would say about the seven-day time limit. I am sorry that he does not see the need for a time limit, although I understand exactly his point about the responsibilities of public bodies to observe the provisions of the ECHR. That goes some way towards meeting my objection. However, I remind him of what I said about the person who lodges the appeal. It is that person who is in charge of the timetable. No one who lodges an appeal would do so without being fully and properly prepared for a hearing. If he was not so prepared, he would be taking an immense risk on top of an already difficult situation. To that extent, the safeguard is with the person who is in prison. However, I do not want to labour that point.
I hope that when all of these provisions are in place, those who are responsible for operating them will read our exchanges at their leisure and he persuaded that they should make all best speed when the appeals are launched. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee should not meet again before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2001
7.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th October be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the regulations are made under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(d) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. They enable the Lord Chancellor to make regulations that limit the circumstances in which costs may be enforced against a person receiving funded services or which define the liability of the Legal Services Commission to meet the costs of the opponent of a person receiving funded services. Such regulations are subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. It might be helpful if I start by explaining to the House why we are amending the regulations.
The change is part of a larger package of reform of the financial conditions for funding in civil cases, which will also come into effect in December. We had recognised that that there was a need to make the

523
financial conditions for funding fairer and more consistent, ensuring that they better reflected priority needs and the client's ability to contribute towards the cost of his or her funding. However, we also recognised the need to make sure that the financial conditions are as fair as possible between funded litigants and their unfunded opponents.
To that end, we recognised the difficulties encountered by privately paying opponents of publicly funded litigants in recovering their costs. It is often the case that people still have to pay their own costs, despite winning their case against a funded client. A funded client's liability for costs is limited to the amount, if any, that it is reasonable for him to pay, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the means and conduct of both parties. Funded clients, by definition, have very limited resources available to them. Consequently, if costs are awarded against a funded client, they are usually ordered,
"not to be enforced without the leave of court",
and their liability is determined at nil. At any time in the next six years the successful unassisted party can apply to vary the order if new information comes to light on the funded client's circumstances. That order will amend the conditions that must be satisfied in order for an order to be made against the Legal Services Commission for the payment of costs incurred by a party who has not received funded services.
We appreciate the distress suffered by successful unassisted defendants who cannot recover costs from their publicly funded opponent. Defendants have no choice about becoming involved in legal actions, so it is right that they should be given some help with meeting costs that they have had no choice but to incur.
If costs cannot be recovered from a funded client, it is possible for privately paying defendants to recover their costs from the Legal Services Commission. At present, in order to do so, the funded client must have begun the proceedings and the winner—the privately paying defendant—must show that he or she would suffer severe financial hardship if the commission does not meet the cost.
The awarding of costs and the decision about whether severe financial hardship would be suffered is for the courts and not for the commission. By introducing the amended regulations, we will give the courts the power to order the commission to pay the costs of a successful unassisted defendant, who would otherwise suffer financial hardship. That involves relaxing the current test of severe financial hardship. We believe that that will strike the right balance between the interests of private litigants and those funded clients who are by definition among the poorest in society.
The changes mean that there will be significant assistance for those people on the lowest incomes. When resources allow, we propose to increase eligibility limits for those services further, bringing them to the same level as those for legal representation,
524
which will mean that a further 2 million people will become eligible. I commend the draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th October be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, my practice at the Bar has been almost entirely in the civil field, and I am well aware of the problems caused to private litigants when the party on the other side—whether the claimant or defendant—is legally aided. That meant that there has not been a level playing field and that people who win still end up having to pay their costs. There is no doubt that there has to some extent been a form of institutionalised abuse of the system by those who are acting for legally aided clients and who are aware of the strengths that their position gives them. I therefore in principle welcome changes that make it easier to recover costs from the commission.
Of the three proposed alterations I welcome without hesitation the proposal in regulation 4(1) which will remove the strict time limit within which the request for the payment of costs from the commission has to be made. I am also entirely supportive of the proposal that the standard required under regulation 5(3)(c) should be downgraded from "severe financial hardship" to "financial hardship". I accept that such an order should not be made unless hardship can be shown.
The one point about which I am not happy is the restriction to non-funded parties who are individuals. It is obviously right that no order should be made relating to the payment of costs to a large corporation. However, there are many small businesses that are incorporated and, if proceedings were brought against them by a legally aided party, that might cause very severe hardship or the business might go into bankruptcy. I am sorry that there has been a total removal of the right of corporate bodies, however small, to recover costs from the client.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I entirely share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on these initiatives.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the assent that they have given to these regulations. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it was necessary for us to strike a balance. We believe that we have achieved the correct balance, but we take seriously all the comments that he has made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001
7.50 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2301), laid before the House on 27th June 2001.

525
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when assessing damages in court cases involving personal injury or fatal accident, a long-established principle is that full compensation be paid to the claimant. The courts order payment of such compensation in the form of a lump sum. The sum represents an amount that, when invested, will generate a future flow of annual income sufficient to meet the expected costs of care and medical attention throughout the remaining years of the victim's life. Clearly, to cover any future flow of anticipated expenditure, the lower the expected rate of return from investing the lump sum, the higher the lump-sum award will have to be.
In the case of Wells v Wells, the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House decided that the so-called Ogden tables, prepared by the Government Actuary, should be used to determine the capital sum that best represents continuing loss of earnings, cost of medical expenses and cost of care in personal injury awards. The tables are especially useful in relation to children who are brain damaged or individuals who are paralysed for life.
In effect, the tables are multiplication tables. The judge determines the annual cost or loss and uses the tables to establish the lump-sum compensation. When using the tables, it is necessary to identify the rate of return on certain specified investments. In order to avoid problems that arise from day-to-day changes in the rate of return, Section 1(1) of the Damages Act 1996 gives the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor power to set it. Section 1(4) of that Act enables such an order to be annulled by either House of Parliament.
This Motion to withdraw is substituted for the customary Prayer because, owing to the need to recall Parliament in September and October this year, the 40-day limitation period had elapsed, through no fault of the Government or the Opposition, before your Lordships reassembled on 15th October.
Despite the urgings of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House in the case of Wells v Wells, it was not until June 2001 that the noble and learned Lord, relying on calculations made by the Treasury's debt management office, finally set a rate of 2.5 per cent. However, the calculations were manifestly inaccurate. The noble and learned Lord tried again. New calculations were produced; but in the end he reaffirmed his earlier decision.
In giving the reasons for his decision the noble and learned Lord contended that he applied the appropriate legal principle laid down in Wells v Wells. In particular, he stated that it was,
"unrealistic to require severely injured claimants to take even moderate risks when they invest their damages awards".
However, it is plain that the substance of the decision of the noble and learned Lord does not reflect that approach. Our view is that a proper application of the principle in Wells v Wells would produce a rate of return of 2 per cent. The difference between 2.5 per cent and 2 per cent is crucial because of the implication for the scale of the lump sum payments.
526
In Wells v Wells the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said:
"What the prudent plaintiff needs is an investment which will bring him the income he requires without the risks inherent in the equity market, which brings us back to the index linked government stocks".
The problem that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, rightly identified is that for most personal injury claimants the costs to be met in the future are care costs that arise on a regular daily, weekly or monthly basis and which are unavoidable. Yet, because of the volatility of equity prices, a claimant who invests his or her award in equities would he exposed to the risk of having to realise capital to meet needs at times when the market value of his or her investments are depressed, thus exhausting the award sooner than anticipated.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was firmly of the view that the only appropriate investment upon which to base the rate of return would be index-linked government stocks of over five years duration. However, it is clear that in setting the rate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was influenced by the opportunities for equity investment. He said:
"there are sensible, low-risk investment strategies available to claimants which would enable them comfortably to achieve a real rate of return at 2.5 per cent or above without them being unduly exposed to risk in the equity markets".
Apart from the fact that that observation contradicts the earlier statement of the noble and learned Lord that he applied the appropriate principles in Wells v Wells, recent activities in the equity markets have severely undermined the strength of the case of the noble and learned Lord. Since United Kingdom equities peaked at about the end of 1999, the FTSE all share index has fallen by over 20 per cent. Indeed, the approach of the noble and learned Lord mirrors that taken by the Court of Appeal in Wells v Wells which was rejected in terms by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House.
However, inconsistency with the Judicial Committee's judgment does not end there. The Judicial Committee also made it clear that the selected gross interest rate should be reduced to allow for the effect of tax on the investment proceeds in the form of income and capital gains tax. In a letter to David Kemp, QC, dated 21st September 2001, the Lord Chancellor's Department said that the base figure used by that department of 2.4 per cent,
"does not take tax into account".
The letter goes on to say:
"a figure of 15 per cent has been used as indicated by Lord Lloyd in Wells v Wells",
as an appropriate rate for tax deduction. Deducting 15 per cent gives a figure of 2.09 per cent. So on the figures of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it is clear that 2 per cent is a more appropriate rate. For a 25 year-old woman with a proven loss of £40,000 per annum, such a difference in interest rates results in a loss of £150.000 in a lump-sum award.

527
There are other less obvious but, nevertheless, important inconsistencies in the way in which the gross amount has been reached. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor decided to base his conclusions on an average over all index-linked government stocks, saying, without giving a reason, that he was not obliged to accept that part of the Judicial Committee's decision. Yet the inclusion of government stock with redemption rates under five years increases the gross rate to the detriment of long-term victims for whom the tables are primarily designed.
Perhaps the most undermining evidence of all is that provided by the Government Actuary. Section 1(4) of the Damages Act requires the noble and learned Lord to consult the Government Actuary as well as the Treasury. The Government Actuary is the Government's principal adviser on pensions, which are what most of the awards in these cases are intended, after all, to provide.
With the greatest possible respect, the Government Actuary is far better qualified to advise on these matters than the debt management officer of the Treasury, which may, on occasions and subconsciously, be susceptible to the financial concerns of government departments, such as the Department of Health or the Ministry of Defence.
The Government Actuary was a member of Sir Michael Ogden's working party which met to respond to the noble and learned Lord's consultation and which recommended a rate of 2 per cent in May 2000. Moreover, in his report to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to Section 1(4) of the Damages Act 1998, the Government Actuary stated:
"My recommendation is that the rate of discount should be prescribed as the rate shown, at the date of the trial, as the gross redemption yield on the FTSE Actuaries Government Securities UK index for index linked gilts with over 5 years to redemption".
He added:
"This rate should be adjusted to allow for tax".
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2301), laid before the House on 27th June 2001.—(Lord Kingsland.)
8 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Perhaps I can add a little flesh to the bones from practical experience. Those of us who practised in the personal injury field will know that the purpose of civil damages is to put the plaintiff in the same situation as if he had never been injured. The purpose is to award a lump sum which, together with interest over a period of time, will meet all the expenses which can reasonably be foreseen. In my earlier years there was a protection to the plaintiff for these capital sums by investing in a mixed bag of equity and government stock. To a degree, that was a protection against inflation. However, it was a slightly risky investment.
In 1981 the index-linked government stock was produced. That was a way in which a person could be fully protected against inflation because the stock was
528
linked to the retail prices index. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, pointed out, in 1998 Wells set a 3 per cent figure pending the Lord Chancellor's determination under the Act. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords said the sooner he performed that duty the better; we would know where we were. At the time a figure of 3 per cent was set. That was not a unanimous decision of their Lordships. The yield on index-linked government stocks averaged over a three-year period was 2.85 per cent. It was slightly above the three-year average, even at that time, but the 3 per cent figure was then maintained.
I well recall sitting as a deputy judge in the High Court some two years ago faced with claims for personal injury, each attracting lump sum damages of over £1 million, and being faced with this problem. There were strong submissions that the 3 per cent rate should be lowered because, as the noble Lord said, the Government Actuary, upon whose figures the Lord Chancellor was supposed to act, in his working party had advised a rate of 2 per cent. That was the submission made to me as a deputy judge. Naturally, after reserving judgment and making inquiries of the Lord Chancellor's Department as to when the rate would be set, I followed precedent. We thought—it was certainly strongly put to me—that the rate would be coming down from 3 per cent. Nevertheless, I followed precedent. I regret to say that the plaintiffs in those three cases, who were severely injured, lost out in the sort of figures to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred in his illustration. I have practical experience of seeing how injured people have not had the money to which the system says they are entitled.
There was a long wait. It was not until June of this year that the Lord Chancellor finally made his pronouncement. It is something like two to three years since the decision in Wells. I should like to know why. We see so many statutory instruments going through this House and through another place. This is perhaps one of the shortest I have ever seen in my life. All it states, effectively, is that the rate should be 2.5 per cent. Why on earth did it take three years for that to happen? Why is not the rate more flexible? Why can it not be altered in accordance with changing rates? As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland stated, over three years to June, taking into account 2.5 per cent inflation, the average yield at the current rate over a three-year period was 2.1 per cent. If tax is taken into account, it was less than 2 per cent. Yet, at that very moment, the Lord Chancellor announced a 2.5 per cent rate.
For another three, four, five or six years, however long it may take, that is the figure that will be used. If interest rates fall further and if stock levels fall, so the injured plaintiff will suffer. That is insupportable. I want to see the Lord Chancellor produce a flexible rate that changes as the FTSE index changes. The figures are available on a monthly basis. There is no reason why that should not be done, certainly at more regular intervals than three years, so that plaintiffs can be properly compensated for their serious injuries. We have been talking in terms of indices and financial

529
jargon of one sort or another. However, this is a human problem. It is the injured person who is suffering.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, as has already been pointed out in the debate on 25th June 2001, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor set the discount rate at 2.5 per cent, he ended three years of uncertainty. However, I believe that the last thing that is needed by anybody, including claimants, is for the whole debate to be re-opened.
Noble Lords will know that I am senior partner at Beachcroft Wansbroughs. For many years I have specialised in financial services, especially personal injury damages. I declare that interest. Although I well understand my noble friend's argument put forward in the debate, I believe we have to reflect on the fact that in practice, claimants do not invest in index-linked government securities. Speaking as chairman of the Association of Independent Financial Advisers, I should be surprised if any independent financial adviser would recommend investment solely or even primarily in index-linked government securities.
At the time of our Appellate Committee's decision in Wells v Wells, there were 12 index-linked government securities available. That ruling was based on the assumption that the Government would continue to issue ILGS.
The fact is that no new ILGS have been issued, although there have been further tranches for existing redemption dates. There are now 11 index-linked government securities in issue, four of which have redemption dates within the next five years. There are no ILGS with a redemption date beyond 2030. Therefore, it is not possible for a claimant with a life expectancy of more than 29 years to protect himself or herself beyond that period. In five years' time there will be only seven ILGS unless new ones are issued, and we are informed that none is contemplated.
There is, however, a great demand for ILGS, particularly from pension funds. The Government's failure to issue new index-linked government securities has distorted the market in those stocks. Thus, any argument which now seeks to rely on the return from ILGS is, I believe, completely out of date. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor was right to depart from the view of the Appellate Committee that the best way to protect the interests of injured claimants was to tie the discount rate exclusively to the return from ILGS.
I believe that the Lord Chancellor was entitled to that considered opinion as the Damages Act places the responsibility for setting the rate on him, the only limitation on his power being the obligation to consult the Government Actuary and the Treasury. My noble friend quite correctly quoted the Lord Chancellor when he said that ILGS were not the only indicator of the real rate of return on low risk investment.
If this debate had taken place before the order had been made I would have argued very strongly that the discount rate should remain at 3 per cent. I tabled a Question for Written Answer about the impact of the
530
reduction from 3 per cent to 2.5 per cent. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor responded that a full assessment of the impact of the new discount rate was being prepared and would be published in due course. I do not know whether the noble Baroness will be able to give the House an update on when that assessment will be ready. I shall be very interested to hear what the impact is.
One must recognise that any reduction, particularly against the artificial market which exists at the moment in ILGS, imposes a huge additional burden, for example on the National Health Service. The report of the National Health Service Litigation Authority states that the additional burden caused by the reduction from 3 per cent to 2.5 per cent amounted to £500 million. The decision to set the rate at 3 per cent was that of the Appellate Committee in Wells v Wells. In arguing that it is no longer appropriate to fix the rate to ILGS, I recognise that in today's market an investor should easily be able to achieve a return of 3 per cent without running any undue risk. If one accepts that to fix the rate by reference to the return from ILGS is no longer fair to both sides, 3 per cent is likely to be too low. Having said that, I recognise that this order was made after full consultation and consideration of the interests of claimants and defendants alike and, I believe, strikes a fair balance between them. I have no wish to see a return to the atmosphere of uncertainty which existed before the order was made.
In conclusion, having discussed this matter with my noble friend, I recognise the strong view that he expresses from the Front Bench. I hope that in the longer term those responsible for this policy will give greater consideration to providing the court with power to order structured settlements. That entirely equitable and humane alternative would avoid all those distasteful arguments about life expectancy and give the injured persons, particularly the parents of an injured child, the security that they need.
8.15 P.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, listening carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I cannot agree with the argument that he put forward in his bid to revoke the Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2001. I try not to disagree with the noble Lord as a former colleague in the European Parliament. However, tonight I must do so. The crux of the noble Lord's problem with the order is that the discount rate for the lump sum damages in personal injury cases has been set too high and should be rounded down to 2 per cent. Yet, as the noble Lord is aware, the Lord Chancellor did not pluck the rate of 2.5 per cent out of thin air. He did not pass me in the corridor one day and ask me what I thought the discount rate should be. The Lord Chancellor did all, and more, that he was required to do by the 1996 Act in terms of consultation. He also commissioned the highest quality advice from independent financial experts.
Having considered all the relevant evidence, the Lord Chancellor came to the conclusion that it was right and appropriate to set the discount rate at 2.5 per

531
cent. In so doing he made it known that his intention was to set a rate that, as far as possible, ensured that injured parties in personal injury cases received the full compensation awarded by the court, no more and no less.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is aware and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has just observed, inadequate compensation is unfair to claimants and over-compensation is unfair to defendants. I believe that in this case the Lord Chancellor has struck the right balance in the rate that he set. I also believe that the noble and learned Lord has struck a balance in recognising that the most significant risk that claimants face is not that their investments will fail to yield a 2.5 per cent return per annum but that they will live longer than assumed when the compensation was awarded. To raise the value of lump sums with an artificially low discount rate will hinder the development of structured awards which can reduce the risk of claimants who live longer facing poverty in old age.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, may accept that it would seriously impede the timely settlement and disposal of personal injury cases if frequent changes were made to the rate to take account of limited and, most probably, temporary changes in market conditions. For these reasons, among others, I cannot agree with the challenge to the order.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, in my professional life it has been my duty to represent a considerable number of injured plaintiffs and many defendant organisations which meet such claims. Experience has taught me one vital fact about those who are severely injured, which is what this debate is about: that they, and particularly their families if they are children, want the assurance, in so far as they can obtain it, that the money they need to look after themselves or their loved ones will not run out.
Contrary to some superficial reports that large awards are squandered, reputable research indicates that many such families save money against a rainy day which they should be spending on the care for which the money was awarded in the first place. They save because they are afraid that the money will run out. In one's professional career one has faced many campaigns to change the rate of interest, which is at the heart of calculating the future loss. The objective is to avoid the risk of the money running out.
The time has come I fear to give up the campaign for the moment. Only three or four years ago the rate was 4.5 per cent. That was wholly unjust. Because of the decision in Wells v Wells it became 3 per cent. That was acceptable at the time. It has now been set at 2.5 per cent. That is the reality. The Motion will not change it.
In giving his reasons, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor tried to reflect a number of considerations. Whether practitioners, trade unionists or whoever agree or disagree, that is the reality. I think that it is time to put the argument aside, with three very important provisos. The first one is that although the Lord Chancellor rightly said that it would not be right
532
to tinker frequently with this rate, equally it would he wrong to be indifferent to a market where rates of interest have gone to the present level and could sink yet more. To bear that in mind and to review the rate earlier than three years if the circumstances required would surely be a prudent approach.
The second proviso is, I hope, important to practitioners. In the Damages Act 1996, Section 1(2) follows Section 1(1) which gives the Lord Chancellor the right to prescribe the rate. But subsection (2) is very important because it allows a judge to award a different rate. If the Lord Chancellor can find it in his heart to forgive me, I have to correct his reasons in one material particular. At the end he said that under that subsection a judge may adopt a different rate in a particular case if there are "exceptional circumstances" so to require. The phrase "exceptional circumstances" is not a statutory phrase. The subsection says that a judge can award a different rate, if in the circumstances of the particular case, it is "appropriate"; in other words, if justice requires it, riot if there are exceptional circumstances. Practitioners should remember that.
My last proviso is not really a proviso; it is a strong and urgent request to the Government to put this history of uncertainty about claims and damages right out of the legal arena in personal injuries claims. That can be done under the law by judges awarding the annual cost of the loss—whether it be care, transport or whatever—which will run for the lifetime of the injured person. So when they go to court the decision is: how much do you need from time to time for that requirement? The heartache, the legal costs and the waste of time spent in trying to calculate a lifetime sum could be completely avoided. Justice would he done. Worry would be put aside. Everyone interested in this, from the claimants to the insurers and the lawyers, would find it much more satisfactory.
I hope that the Lord Chancellor's present consultation on this issue will lead to a conclusion as robust as the one that I have suggested. The debate marks a review of yesterday. I close by inviting a different approach tomorrow.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I support my noble friend's Motion. In so doing, I support the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, to end the uncertainty in this matter.
I intervene in the debate as a former independent board member of the Medical Defence Union. I shall not repeat the detailed arguments which have already been made. I recognise the needs of claimants in these sometimes very tragic circumstances. But I make the point that lowering the discount rate from June of this year immediately increased compensation payments for medical and negligence claims. It dramatically increased the National Health Service's clinical and negligence liability. That was a point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt. It increased the payments made by medical defence organisations on behalf of their members. These payments have increased exorbitantly in recent years. Therefore, it follows that

533
any further decreases in the discount rate will not be in the public's long-term interest as increases in awards will ultimately be made from the public purse.
I also ask the Minister why discount rates cannot be based on a prudent combination of index-linked government stocks and equities and not just on index-linked government stocks. That blend would be extremely helpful.
The final point that I make is in relation to the retrospective effect of these changes. Medical negligence claims have such long time-scales that any increases in awards have an immediate adverse effect on NHS funds.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I first thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have raised a number of issues. Noble Lords will know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave a long and detailed consideration to this order. In so doing, he acted entirely properly throughout and reached an entirely reasonable decision.
I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said, but perhaps I may gently suggest that some of the quotations were a little selective. One really must read the decision and the reasons given to it in the round. In preparing for the debate, I refreshed my memory by reading those reasons in full. Indeed, I was tempted, so comprehensive and complete were they, simply to read them into this debate as my speech. But I know that that would never do.
Last year the Lord Chancellor issued a consultation paper seeking views on his powers in setting the discount rate. Respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the Lord Chancellor prescribing a discount rate, but it is right to say that there was a wide range of contrasting opinions about what the rate should be. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked why it took so long. Part of the reason is because the Lord Chancellor was determined to get this matter right and to make as broad a consultation as was necessary. The Lord Chancellor gave careful consideration to the many difficult and detailed points raised and commissioned further advice from expert financial analysts.
I was refreshed to hear the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I agree with him in terms of what the reality of the situation demands.
In the course of the process, the Lord Chancellor, as he is required by statute, consulted the Government Actuary and the Treasury. He also approached the Debt Management Office, which is the Treasury executive agency responsible for managing the Government's debt. As such, it records daily market prices on all government stocks available in the market and is an authoritative source on the real yields implied by those prices. His decision takes account of their advice about the details of different methodologies. I stress the word "consultation". The Lord Chancellor, although he is obliged to consult and to take that into consideration, is not restricted to simply
534
applying what those consultees say. He must engage in an analytical process of defining what the consequences of those diverse consultations actually mean.
On 27th June, the Lord Chancellor laid the order setting the discount rate at 2.5 per cent. His reasons were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Those reasons referred to a three-year average gross yield of index-linked government stock of 2.61 per cent, on which the decision was largely based. Questions were raised as to the correctness of the figure, and the Debt Management Office, which supplied that figure, subsequently discovered that there were certain minor inaccuracies in the underlying data.
It was regrettable that that error arose. As a result, the Lord Chancellor considered his decision completely afresh. He applied the legal principles laid down authoritatively by the courts, most recently by an Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in Wells v Wells, as has already been said.
It was held that,
"the object of the award of damages for future expenditure is to place the injured party as nearly as possible in the same financial position he or she would have been in but for the accident. The aim is to award such a sum of money as will amount to no more, and at the same time no less, than the net loss".
That point has been emphasised by several noble Lords, not least by my noble friend Lady Crawley. The Lord Chancellor also acknowledged that claimants who had suffered severe injuries in an accident will not be in the same position as ordinary investors and will need to ensure that they have dependable sources of income to meet their future needs and care costs. For those reasons, it is unrealistic to expect them to take even moderate risks when investing their damage awards.
The Lord Chancellor thought it important that both claimant and defendant should have a reasonably clear idea about the impact of the discount rate on their case. He decided that this objective would be achieved by setting a single rate to cover all cases; that it should be set to the nearest 0.5 per cent; and that there should not be frequent changes to the rate. Noble Lords will know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, made just that point in Wells v Wells, when he said that it was undesirable that the guidelines should be changed too often.
The discount rate has to cover a wide variety of different cases and claimants with widely differing personal and financial characteristics. The consultation exercise also demonstrated that estimating the real rate of return on possible future investments, including index-linked government stock, involves making some assumptions for the future about the wide variety of factors that affect the economy as a whole—for example, the likely rate of inflation. So any approach to setting the discount rate must be fairly broad brush. There can be no single right answer as to what rate should be set.
Their Lordships in Wells v Wells decided that it was appropriate to set the discount rate by reference to the average yield on index-linked government stock. In deciding what the rate should be, the Lord Chancellor

535
considered advice on various forms of investment in addition to index-linked government stock, including banks, building societies, bonds and equities. I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, that that was very much in his mind.
He considered that claimants with a large award as compensation could reasonably be expected to seek expert financial advice. I was not surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, say that that was in accordance with good practice. The advice that my noble and learned friend received demonstrated that a mixed portfolio, which would be recommended as offering a low-risk form of investment, could be expected to produce real rates of return well in excess of 2.5 per cent. Nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor followed their Lordships in Wells v Wells and decided that he should use the average yield on index-linked government stock as the benchmark for setting the rate.
There is no single correct method by which the average yield on index-linked government stock can be calculated. Among other factors, the calculation will depend on which stocks are to be included in the average, the length of the period under consideration, the inflation assumption made and the form of average taken. There is room for reasonable people to reach different conclusions as to the preferable approach to each of those points of detail. Indeed, there were some differences of this nature between the judgments of their Lordships in Wells v Wells itself.
The Lord Chancellor chose a methodology for calculating the average yield on index-linked government stock that is robust and straightforward. It is a simple average of the real yields over the past three years of all stocks available in the market. His calculation is based on an assumed inflation rate of 3 per cent, which is now the standard industry assumption.
That calculation produces an average gross yield figure of 2.46 per cent and a yield net of tax of 2.09 per cent. Accordingly, my noble and learned friend concluded that the net average yield on index-linked government stock, as adjusted to take account of tax, lies in the range between 2 per cent and 2.5 per cent. In his opinion, following Wells v Wells, the discount rate should be set with that range in mind. The Lord Chancellor did not consider that the choice of whether a rate of 2 per cent or one of 2.5 per cent was appropriate was a simple arithmetical matter, nor that Wells v Wells required him to prefer one rate or the other.
It was in the context of that final stage of the reasoning process—whether to round up or down—that the Lord Chancellor again considered the advice received through consultation. That included advice that the present rate of return in respect of index-linked government stock does not represent a pure and undistorted measure of the real rate of return that markets would afford. It also appeared that there are sensible low-risk investment strategies available to claimants that will enable them comfortably to achieve a real rate of return of 2.5 per cent or above, without
536
their being unduly exposed to risk in the equity market—a point reinforced this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral.
Having considered all the evidence and advice available to him, my noble and learned friend concluded that the discount rate should be 2.5 per cent. In doing so, he had borne in mind that it will, of course, remain open to the courts, under Section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996—I am happy to confirm to my noble friend Lord Brennan that his correction was right—to adopt a different rate in any particular case if there are exceptional circumstances to justify them in so doing.
So there is a degree of flexibility. The Lord Chancellor's decision to set the rate at 2.5 per cent, which achieves the objective of providing full compensation—no more; no less—strikes a fair balance between the interests of claimants and defendants. There is a major point here. The Lord Chancellor has set the discount rate in exercise of his statutory powers to do so, has directed himself correctly in accordance with the law and acted throughout on the highest quality legal and financial advice.
Your Lordships may think it significant that having set the discount rate at that level, he has been criticised both by those who want a lower discount rate and by those who want a higher rate. That in itself is unsurprising. But—perhaps this is the point—no one has initiated legal proceedings to challenge his decision in the courts. Any such challenge would now be time-barred. The courts are the correct place to challenge the ministerial exercise of discretionary powers conferred by Parliament. One almost feels that if no one is entirely happy, my noble and learned friend has probably got it exactly right. I invite your Lordships to so infer.
I turn to some of the specific points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that the Lord Chancellor's decision mirrored that of the Court of Appeal in Wells v Wells, which was overturned by their Lordships on appeal. Your Lordships will know that that is not correct. The Court of Appeal in Wells v Wells favoured a figure of 4.5 per cent based directly on a mixed portfolio. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used the benchmark on government stock and adjusted that figure only at the margins to take account of the mixed portfolio and other factors which I have already outlined.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who asked about setting the rate and suggested that the delay was unreasonable, it can be seen from what I have described that it took a great deal of time and care to reach that conclusion. I invite the noble Lord to accept that it was undertaken as speedily and efficaciously as was necessary and appropriate.
The noble Lord also asked about a flexible rate. What people most need in this area is certainty. A number of noble Lords commented on the distress, concern and disadvantage which was caused by instability and lack of certainty. We do not believe it would inure to anyone's benefit to return to that position.

537
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about a lump sum. Calculating a lump sum is not an exact science and claimants will invariably end up with too much or too little. That is why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is currently taking forward work on structured orders and expects to publish a consultation paper on detailed proposals in the new year. My noble friend Lord Brennan mentioned some of that work.
There is an issue in relation to lump sum awards. Some have argued that it will encourage families to save money instead of spending it on care; that families will be concerned that they will be squandering it. Others say that they will be depriving themselves of the care needed. The consultation paper must encompass all such issues in order for us to gain a better understanding before reaching an informed decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked when information will be published. The published information will be available early in the new year. We need to gather data from all the major interest groups affected, including the local authorities. The latter has been taking a little time and we must await the outcome of that exercise. However, the matter is being examined with a deal of energy.
I hope that I have covered the issues which were raised by noble Lords. In responding to the Motion, I should make clear that I am not, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, making a fresh decision but seeking better to explain and amplify why he reached the decision he reached in July. That is the only decision that he has made in relation to the matter.
I invite your Lordships to say that we have had a good debate but that time has moved on. Many cases have been settled as a result of the 2.5 per cent recommendation and they have finally been disposed of on the basis of that rate by the Lord Chancellor. I invite your Lordships to say that it would not be appropriate for us now to seek to re-open a situation which has properly and fairly been closed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble and noble and learned Lords who have spoken in the debate. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me one or two reflections on what she said. First, I do not believe—and in doing so perhaps I am alone in your Lordships' House—that the fact that my proposal will increase the expenditure of the National Health Service is relevant in this decision. If people are under-compensated and suffer as a result, that is a far more serious matter than the Government having to raise a little more money in taxation. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness confirming that that was not a consideration in the mind of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he made his decision.
While the noble Baroness was making her speech, I tried to test what she said against the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in Wells v Wells. With the greatest possible respect to the noble Baroness, I must say that I found her conclusions about what the noble and learned Lord the Lord
538
Chancellor determined not to match the criteria laid down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. It is clear from what the noble Baroness said that a return on equity shares was taken into account in the decision of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is also clear that, when the calculation for tax was made, the figure which resulted was much closer to 2.0 than 2.5 per cent.
In those circumstances, I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ought to have drawn the logical arithmetical conclusions and not insert some additional factor which had no place in the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. In those circumstances, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Barker, B.

Kingsland, L. [Teller]

Blatch, B.

Laird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lyell, L.

Byford, B.

McNally, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Marlesford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Montrose, D.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E

Dholakia, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elton, L.

Roper, L.

Geddes, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Glentoran, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Greaves, L.

Seccombe, B.

Greenway, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller]

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooper, B.

Tope, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Alli, L.

Chandos, V.

Amos, B.

Christopher, L.

Andrews, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Bach, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Crawley, B.

Berkeley, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Billingham, B.

Desai, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Borrie, L.

Dubs, L.

Bragg, L.

Elder, L.

Brennan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brett, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brookman, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Filkin, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Gale, B.

539

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Golding, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Mitchell, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Morgan, L.

Goudie, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peston, L.

Grabiner, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grocott, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harrison, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Hayman, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rooker, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sawyer, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hoyle, L.

Sewel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Thornton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Warner, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Warwick of Underclifle, B.

Layard, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Whitaker, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Wilkins, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
8.57 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 25.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 114E:
Page 13, line 13, after "commenced" insert "without leave"
The noble Earl said: At least this is a simple and straightforward amendment. It addresses the clause in the Bill which requires that an appeal against certification must not be commenced after a period of three months from the date the certificate is issued. The amendment seeks to add to that the proviso, "without leave", thus allowing SIAC a discretion to accept a late appeal if it saw fit.
A great many reasons can put forward as to why an appeal may be delayed which may not be the fault of the applicant. For example, those who have been the victims of torture often find it extremely difficult to tell a coherent story for some time afterwards. I believe that there is no reason at all why being a terrorist and being a victim of torture should be incompatible. Indeed, if one happens to come from Iraq, the conjunction is quite probable.
People who have been the victims of rape again find it difficult to tell their story for some time afterwards. Once more, I see no reason why women terrorists—it
540
is a part of the downside of equality that one cannot assume that terrorists are male—should be any more immune from rape than others.
Many appeals are delayed because of the incompetence of the legal advice available to those concerned. If one deals with claims for asylum, one comes across such cases all the time. In some cases, the inability to appeal after a fixed period may cause real injustice. It could save the Government a good deal of trouble and save Ministers a good deal of correspondence if SIAC were to be allowed what I believe would prove to be an extremely helpful safety valve. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: Perhaps I may put this into context. First, we are concerned here with the case of persons who have been detained. In those circumstances, three months would appear at first glance to be a more than ample period in which to launch an appeal. They would be visited by representatives. No physical barrier would be put in the way of lodging an appeal. Furthermore, it is worth recording that an appeal against certification is not the only remedy available. It is worth noting—this has not been referred to so far in the debate—that, as the basis for the decision is an immigration decision to refuse leave to enter, or whatever else it may be, and as that decision is a necessary pre-condition for the certification giving effect to the detention, there is an appellate procedure in relation to that aspect in any event. There is also the possibility at the end of six months of applying for a review of certification.
In those circumstances, I suggest that three months for the appeal is an adequate time. The likelihood is that an appeal will be put in much earlier. I invite the noble Earl to consider what I have said. What he has said must also be considered, but I hope that he will not press the amendment.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I made no objection to three months as a general target. It seems perfectly reasonable as a general rule. My argument was not for changing the general rule but for allowing a degree of discretion. While clearly it makes a significant difference that other routes are available, nevertheless there will be some cases for which this appeal is by far the most appropriate route.
Some of the people concerned are likely to be genuine asylum seekers. One makes no presumption as to what the proportion may be, but the chance that some of them will be is quite considerable. Among that group of people, this type of delay in putting in an appeal is quite common. It can also happen because of ordinary physical illness, which can sometimes keep people in a state where they are unfit to put in an appeal for a considerable length of time.
I cannot see that it would do SIAC any harm to allow itself this discretion. After all, it would not have to exercise it unless it saw a good reason for doing so. However, I do not see any need to take the matter

541
further tonight. I shall ponder the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Certification: review]:
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 13, line 18, leave out from "25," to "months" in line 19 and insert "within three"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 116, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 and 118, with which it is grouped. The amendments seek to safeguard interests. The longer the detention, the more it is important that the review takes place as soon as possible. We are therefore suggesting—in all three amendments—that the review should be within a period of three months. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I hope that the announcement I made earlier will meet the noble Lord's desires. I indicated that after the first six months we will go to a three month review. We shall be bringing forward amendments at Report stage to that effect.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 119 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Appeal and review: supplementary]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 14, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The Commission shall give reasons in writing for a decision on an appeal or review to which subsection (1) applies.
( ) Rules under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68) (general procedure) may provide for all or part of the reasons to be withheld from disclosure to persons other than a person appointed under section 6 of that to represent the interests of the appellant or of the person who is the subject of the review."
The noble Lord said: To some extent, this is a probing amendment which seeks to ensure that the commission is required to give its reasons for a decision in a form which will make it possible for the Court of Appeal to review them in the exercise of a right of appeal on a point of law.
The commission's reasons must be disclosed. We hope that the special representative appointed under the 1997 Act will be given powers to appear in the Court of Appeal, if necessary. Where, for security reasons, it is not practicable to disclose to the detainee the full reasons why an appeal has been dismissed, at
542
least those reasons can be seen by the special representative, who will be able to make use of them in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I should also like to speak to this group of amendments, in particular Amendment No. 123.
Lord Goldsmith: We are dealing with Amendment No. 120.
Baroness Buscombe: I am sorry.
Lord Goldsmith: The Special Immigration Appeals Commission procedure rules, to which I referred in a previous debate, provide under rule 23 that the commission must record its determination and, to the extent that it is possible to do so without disclosing information contrary to public interests, the reasons for it. That would apply to the determination by SIAC under this procedure because the rules are incorporated under Clause 27(6) of the Bill.
In those circumstances, the noble Lord may feel, perhaps, that his concern—which I entirely understand—is sufficiently met. If there is an aspect of his concern which is not met by the incorporation of those rules, I shall be happy to look at the matter further.
Lord Goodhart: My concerns are not entirely met. The problem is that the present rules allow the commission not to disclose its reasons in full because of security reasons. It would be better if the commission were required to disclose its reasons in full, because without that the Court of Appeal may not properly be able to exercise its powers of reviewing on a point of law. The security interest should be protected by allowing the reasons, or part of the reasons, to be withheld from the detainee and shown only to the special representative. The special representative can then conduct the appeal—which would no doubt be heard in camera in the Court of Appeal—and would have full access to the whole of the reasons of the commission.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that point. As I have indicated, I am happy to consider it further but I am not in a position to say any more at this stage. I hope that that is of some help to the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart: I think that we have taken this matter as far as we can go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Hooper): I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 121 is agreed to, Amendment No. 122 will be pre-empted.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 14, line 37, leave out from "certificate" to end of line 38 and insert—
"(a) on grounds of change of circumstances, or
(b) where the initial certificate was cancelled because of a technical irregularity."
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to subsection (9) of Clause 27:
"Cancellation by the Commission of a certificate issued under section 21 shall not prevent the Secretary of state from issuing another certificate, whether on the grounds of a change of circumstance or otherwise".
Amendment No. 122 seeks to leave out "or otherwise". It is the very least that can be done. The phrase is very wide. It could mean that the commission might come to a particular conclusion and the next day for any reason the Secretary of State could issue another certificate within the framework of his responsibilities.
Amendment No. 121 attempts to make some sense out of the subsection. It proposes that the Secretary of State should be entitled to issue another certificate,
"on grounds of change of circumstances, or … where the initial certificate was cancelled because of a technical irregularity".
Where the commission simply disagrees with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his power to issue a certificate, it seems to us that the issuing of another certificate immediately, on any grounds at all, is inappropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendments Nos. 121 and 122.
I want also to speak briefly to Amendment No. 123. We agree with the overall gist of the amendment; namely, that the subsection is too broadly drawn. We believe that the circumstances in which a fresh certificate can be issued must be narrowly defined.
In the event of a certificate being cancelled it should not be reissued without very good reason; and it should not be reissued without the support of fresh evidence which was not, for whatever reason, available when the original certificate was issued. I commend Amendment No. 123 to the Committee.
Lord Rooker: These three amendments deal with a matter that was raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We fully understand the wish of Members of the Committee to ensure that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State arbitrary power to reissue a Clause 21 certificate in defiance of a decision by SIAC to cancel the first certificate. We have given careful thought to whether we can find an alternative formulation to the one in Clause 27(9). We have riot been able to find one.
There is a variety of circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to make a fresh certificate after SIAC has cancelled the original. Perhaps I may give a few examples which I hope will help the Committee in case the matter receives further consideration.
544
First, if there is a change in circumstances and matters have moved on from the time when the original certificate was made, there may be new reasons for considering that a person now qualifies as a suspected international terrorist, notwithstanding SIAC's decision.
Secondly, the same basic case against an individual may exist, but new evidence may come to light which substantiates a previous suspicion or belief. For example, there may have been a belief that a person was a member of a proscribed organisation but SIAC may have concluded that there were no reasonable grounds for that belief. New information may subsequently emerge which strongly supports the original contention, and that may justify a fresh certificate.
Thirdly, there are technical matters where the certificate was cancelled for procedural shortcomings. Fourthly, a higher court might reverse a decision of SIAC, which would mean a fresh certificate being issued unless that higher court resurrected the certificate itself.
None of the amendments would catch all those possible scenarios. One solution might be to adopt an amendment that covered all of them, but if we try to create an exhaustive list there is always a risk that something will be overlooked. That is why we do not favour that approach.
Another way would be to delete subsection (9) and argue that the Secretary of State would be able to issue a fresh certificate in appropriate cases without the need for express provision. However, that also carries risks. There are examples in other Acts of Parliament in which mention is made that certain actions do not prejudice the future use of the same power. Paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 relating to detention is one such instance. If the Bill is silent on the matter, it is not certain what the consequences would be. That is why we prefer to have the provision in the Bill.
I confirm that our intention is that the Secretary of State will issue a fresh certificate only if it is justified. We rely heavily on SIAC, which would rightly take a dim view of any Secretary of State who seemed to be ignoring its decisions. I am sure that it would cancel any inappropriately made future certificates in short order. Furthermore, it might well be a breach of Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and perhaps also of Articles 6 and 13, for a Secretary of State to adopt such a course.
I fully appreciate that the matter was considered by the Human Rights Committee. We have genuinely looked to see whether we can meet the concerns raised, but for the reasons that I have given I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will be satisfied that we are acting honourably and will not press their amendments.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: This sounds terribly like double jeopardy. There is somebody whom we do not quite have enough evidence to lock up, but we think that we ought to lock him up anyway. Along comes SIAC and says that we should let him go. The Minister then says that he has a little more evidence, so the Government

545
lock the man up anyway. That is exactly what is described and it sounds to me like double jeopardy. I thought that once a man had been acquitted it did not matter what he did—he should be acquitted and that was that. The more that one hears of the Bill, the more dangerously it goes to the heart of our liberties. I know that we are talking about only 10 or so people and about a horrendous amount of damage done by terrorism, but we must be very careful about our ancient liberties because they are more important than anything else. That was double jeopardy.
Lord McNally: The Minister has conceded that the paragraph is very wide, but he pleads with us to believe his honourable intentions. Nobody doubts his honourable intentions, but there is the opening for a cat and mouse act here. The Minister has previously put a lot of emphasis on the responsible role that SIAC is going to play, yet the Bill leaves a blank cheque for the Home Secretary of the day to defy or ignore SIAC.
Amendment No. 121 may not be absolutely right or drawn widely enough, but it at least goes in the right direction. Perhaps on Report we could secure an amendment that would allow the Home Secretary to take on proper changes in circumstances but gave him something less than a blank cheque.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I hope that the Government take on board what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, have just said and think again.
Lord Rooker: I do not accept the description of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, although I understand his concern. We share that concern in a way. We have spent some time looking at the issue, particularly in view of the comments of the Human Rights Committee. We are conscious of the efforts that have gone into that Joint Committee of both Houses and we take it very seriously.
As I have said already, without any commitment, we are continually looking at the Bill during its passage—at the issues that we have already dealt with and at the issues that are still to come before the Committee. We are constantly reviewing our decisions. We have had a look at the issue already, but we shall not stop doing so. If we can find a way to meet the desires of the Select Committee, we shall certainly do so. We have not stopped working on the clause. For tonight, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment but I assure him that we shall continue looking at the issue.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: There are none of the Minister's examples that could not have been encompassed in the words set out in Amendment No. 121, because a "change of circumstances" means exactly that. Fresh evidence would be a change of circumstance. Amendment No. 121 does not ask for too much. I welcome the Minister's assurance, but we shall certainly return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Campbell-Savours: Over the past three days, I and many other Members of the Committee have spent about 16 hours listening to debates and wanting to intervene. I have sought not to do so except on this narrow issue.
From those debates and comments outside, it seems that SIAC's integrity is most important to the Bill's implementation. I tried to find out about SIAC's operations since it was established in 1997. Little material is available in the public domain, apart from the Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt which deals with a number of aspects of SIAC's operation and how the tribunal's practices and procedures have been reviewed for conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights and to meet any particular concerns. The report says that the commission was set up in response to criticism of the Government by the ECHR.
Debates in this House and more widely have included discussion of whether there is some deficiency in the procedures, particularly in respect of the special advocate. A person making appeal may not feel that their case is being adequately heard. On 29th July 1998 the Lord Chancellor stated:
"The special advocate will see all of the Secretary of State's material. He will be able to test it; for example, by cross-examining witnesses. He will be able to make representations to the commission; for example, about the material to be withheld from the appellant. He will not, however, be able to communicate with the appellant as a representative normally would".
That is obviously the basis of the concern that has been expressed. The Lord Chancellor continued:
"There is a risk of inadvertent disclosure through an apparent innocent remark".
That is the explanation given by the Lord Chancellor. He went on:
"He will be able to apply to the Commission to seek specific information from the appellant".—[Official Report, 29/7/1998; col. 1588.]
It is difficult to understand why,
"inadvertent disclosure through an apparent innocent remark",
could be deemed sufficient justification. Section 6 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which established the SIAC explains the basis on which such persons are appointed. They are supposed to be trusted by the state and the Government are meant to have confidence in their reliability. I presume that these are people who understand exactly what sort of information they are not allowed to reveal under official secrets legislation. Surely they are capable of having a conversation with an appellant without—again quoting the Lord Chancellor—disclosing information through an apparently innocent remark.
I felt there might be room for compromise on that principle. Surely there are lawyers who are capable of having direct contact with the people they are representing for the purposes of the tribunal.

547
I move on to what the Lord Chancellor said at col. 1589:
"We have imposed on the Secretary of State the requirement to notify the Attorney-General of the potential need for the appointment of a special advocate at the time he decides to oppose the appeal. In that way, the special advocate will have the maximum time possible to communicate freely with the appellant. Once he has received the Secretary of State's material, the special advocate's access to the appellant will be restricted, but he will be able to apply to the commission for authority to seek information, in connection with the proceedings, from the appellant or his representative".
We come back to the same point. Why should contact be restricted? If that person can be trusted not to reveal information which is sensitive to national security, why should not that lawyer have full access to the appellant in that particular case?
Finally, we have been told—indeed I read in a number of documents and the secretary of the commissioner said—that information relating to membership of the commission is confidential. In reality the chairman of the commission is known; it is in Whitaker's Almanack. Indeed, I think it was referred to earlier in today's debate. Therefore, in so far as the name of the chairman of the commission is made public, is there some other reason—apart from the case of a person who has knowledge of security matters—why the name of the person from the immigration appellate body should not also be made public?
Lord Thom as of Gresford: I support the noble Lord's criticism of SIAC. He puts his finger on a very important point.
When the special advocate appears before the commission, he will be given access to all the material that the commission will see. The secret material will, I imagine from my own experience, consist of telephone intercepts, surveillance records and so forth; and possibly informers, though I would be surprised if the names of the informants are revealed to anybody. That is the sort of information that is held close to the chest.
The submissions that will be made to the commission will be, on the one hand, from the advocate on behalf of the Home Secretary, saying, "Look at all this. He did this. He did that. He did something else. And because he did those things we have a suspicion that he is a terrorist". The special advocate will be in the unique situation of being unable to go to his client and say, "Look, it is said that you were in such-and-such a place on this day; that you were talking to a well-known terrorist; that you received a letter from somewhere else". He will not be allowed to ask the client where he was, so the client could say, "No, that is wrong. I was somewhere else. They have got the wrong person".
There are no proceedings before a court of law in this country where the advocate cannot represent his client by taking instructions from him. It is the basic principle of audi alteram partem; how on earth can the tribunal hear the other side of the coin if the person concerned does not know what the case is against him?
548
Since the 17th century the courts of this country have protected the identity of informers, long before the telephone or cameras were invented. That was something that was traditionally secure: never reveal the identity of informants. The courts have dealt with that for centuries. The courts have dealt with telephone intercepts, surveillance and matters which might reveal the methods of the security services. That is what they are concerned about. They have dealt with that in trial after trial. Noble Lords who heard the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, were listening to perhaps this country's most experienced advocate in terrorist trials. I cannot think of anyone who has had more experience in this area. She will have been dealing with such matters all the time. She comes to a firm view. My experience of terrorist trials is less although I have some, and I have a clear view as to how the identities of informers and the methods of the security services can be and are protected.
We have here a system which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said recently was better than judicial review. That is nonsense, but we reserve that for later. I am amazed that the Government claim that a system whereby the advocate cannot take instructions from his client to controvert the facts and prepare his argument is better than the present system.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: It is ironic. I hope that I am right on this. If the man is charged and there is enough evidence against him for the Crown Prosecution Service to think that it can lock him up, he has the right to see the evidence. He has the right to instruct an advocate. However, if the Crown or the Home Secretary does not have enough evidence to lock hint up, he does not have the right to see the evidence. That strikes me as being very odd.
Lord Goldsmith: I am happy to deal with this point under debate on whether Clause 27 shall stand part I am not convinced that it is the most logical place, but I do not want in any way to avoid the issues.
I go back to what has been said. There will be sensitive intelligent information in certain cases which could not be revealed without compromising sources or prejudicing the security of other people. It is not difficult for any noble Lord to consider circumstances in which, if a hidden source—for example, someone inside a group, under cover—were to reveal that this happened on this particular day or that that conversation was heard on that particular day, it would put the life of that source at risk and prevent that source continuing with other work.
The hard choice is that that is not material which can be put before a court. At Second Reading I made the point that in circumstances where the court decides to use the PII system, it is saying that certain information that the prosecutor does not want to rely upon need not be disclosed because there is a general rule that unused material—even if the prosecutor does not want to rely on it—may be put forward. The noble Lord's example of the position of viewpoint of an observer is exactly such a case. It may not matter where the

549
viewpoint was. The judge may say, "It is not relevant to this case. You don't have to reveal that because if you do so I recognise that you will be compromising a source: where this observer is being seen from". As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said recently, the court looks at the information, decides that it does not need to be disclosed and does not rely on it. The court cannot rely on it.
We are faced with this situation. Sensitive intelligence information shows that there is a person who, it is reasonable to believe, is a risk to national security. Because we cannot reveal that information without prejudicing source or national security, are we simply to say that we must do nothing about it? In the Chahal case the European Court of Human Rights said that it recognised that the use of confidential information might be unavoidable where national security was at stake. The question is: how do you use that material? How do you allow SIAC to review it? I refer to the special advocate procedure which the European Court commended in Chahal.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, he does not represent accurately what the special advocate procedure is. First, the special advocate—this is rule seven of the rules—has a function to represent the interests of the applicant. That means making submissions, cross-examining witnesses and making submissions to the commission. Before any of the sensitive information has been received, he is at full liberty to communicate with the applicant, to talk to him and to get any information he wants from him. After he has received the sensitive information, he needs to apply to the commission if he wants to talk further with the appellant. Rule 7(7) states that the special advocate may communicate with the appellant and his representative. At any time after the Secretary of State has made the material available under Rule 10(3), the special advocate may seek directions from the commission authorising him to seek information in connection with the proceedings from the appellant or his representative. So in those circumstances the commission can control—
Lord Campbell-Savours: May I—?
Lord Goldsmith: Will the noble Lord allow me to finish the point and then I shall gladly give way? In those circumstances the commission can control whether there is or is not a security issue about saying to someone, "I want to know where you were on 14th June because that is what it is all about". The casual comment, "14th June", might—but the special advocate may not know it—bring home to the appellant the fact that he knows where he was on 14th June, that he spoke only to a certain person and that that person is, therefore, an informer.
Lord Campbell-Savours: All the papers will have been seen by the three members and also by the special advocate. Therefore, the special advocate will have no knowledge more or less than the other three persons. Therefore, why is he not capable of making that
550
judgment independently of them? Why must they say, "You cannot do this; you cannot raise that; you cannot refer to that date and you cannot talk about that conversation?" If he or she knows the gravity of the case as well as the three people sitting in adjudication, why cannot he make that decision himself?
Lord Goldsmith: I suggest that the answer is that the procedure allows for a reasoned discussion in which the Secretary of State's representative can no doubt point out why there is a particular difficulty about asking about the 14th June. The commission can then make a reasoned decision in relation to that.
The Earl of Onslow: Can we go back to this mythical 14th June? If the man is criminally accused in a court, the 14th June will be made public. Therefore, the risk to security, if he is one, is the same as it would be if the man then pleaded not guilty. I cannot see why you can say it when the chap is being charged but not when he is being locked up by administrative order.
Lord Goldsmith: Perhaps I may help the noble Earl. It may not be apparent to him that there are criminal prosecutions which do not take place because they cannot take place without revealing sensitive intelligence information and compromising it. In those circumstances it is not that the material is somehow put before the court in some way that the applicant does not see it; that information cannot be used. In those circumstances the prosecution cannot take place. That happens, as the Committee will know. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will know well that one of the reasons that in a number of cases certain defendants will consistently ask for disclosure of information about informers or about sources is because they hope that, if the prosecution is obliged to reveal the source or the information, it will not be prepared to do that as it would compromise the source and put people's lives at risk and the prosecution cannot take place.
We are dealing with a different situation where there is a reasonable belief that someone is a national security risk—someone who has no right to be here and for whom there is a right to deport but we cannot deport because we are concerned about his or her human rights. That is one point and one point only. In the circumstances mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, do we let those people roam free or do we find a way of allowing the decision to be reviewed judicially by a committee which includes a High Court judge, another judge and another member in a manner that allows a good working arrangement so that the matter can be dealt with? I hope that I have said enough.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Has the noble and learned Lord ever cross-examined a witness in a case involving the liberty of the subject without any instructions from his client? Has that ever happened? Can he envisage it? If he has been in such a situation, how effective was it?
Lord Goldsmith: There appears to be a view that SIAC is not dealing with these cases. The reason for

551
setting up SIAC was, following the Chahal case, to deal with cases where the Secretary of State had formed a view that it was not conducive to the public interest that someone should stay here but, rather, that that person should be deported. Such a view would be based on intelligence information. That is why SIAC was set up.
The circumstances that I have set out are not different from those proposed under the Bill. I have the testimonial of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that it is a fair compromise between the national security issue and the protection of individual liberties. It must be ensured as far as possible that the appellant knows the nature of the case against him. Where that is not possible, it must be ensured that an experienced, independent advocate is available to put it forward, and the matters must be represented and cross-examined.
Lord Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to press my noble and learned friend on this matter. But perhaps I may quote again what the Lord Chancellor said on 29th July 1998. He said:
"The special advocate will see all of the Secretary of State's material".—[Official Report, 29/7/98; col. 1588.]
That is, everything; all the material which is highly sensitive and highly secret. If the special advocate is capable of absorbing that material and not breaching security, why does he not have the right to speak directly to the appellant after the Secretary of State has submitted the case to the tribunal?
Lord Goldsmith: If the commission so agrees, then he can speak to the appellant and seek particular information.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Particular? Why does it have to be under those controlled conditions? That is what I am driving at. Why does he not have a general right of access so long as he does not breach matters of national security?
Lord Goldsmith: It is to ensure that inadvertently sources do not lose their lives and to ensure that national security is not compromised because a person does not appreciate the particular circumstances. If there is no risk of that happening, the commission will say that there is not a problem in his asking where someone was on 14th June.
I cannot improve on that. It is a system which enables the interests of the applicant to be safeguarded. It works already. It worked in the Rehman case. In effect, the individual was represented by a special advocate who did such a good job that he persuaded SIAC to overturn the decision of the Secretary of State. This is no impotent procedure. It is a robust protection for the appellant, consistent with protecting national interests. Therefore, I ask that Clause 27 stand part.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, I understand the intense difficulties of the
552
dilemmas that are being dealt with. If the Attorney-General were the special advocate, and knowing that the procedure allows the special advocate to go back to his client only having seen the evidence with the consent of SIAC, would he not then consider it to be his duty to obtain from his client, before he sees the evidence, an extremely long, detailed deposition of facts relating to all the possible contingencies which might give rise to the order being sought? Will the Attorney-General at least assure us that the procedures will permit that? One could be talking about four of five days' work to get a single statement from the person whose liberty is at stake.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I absolutely assure the noble Lord that before the material has been seen by the special advocate, he can spend as much time as he wishes with the appellant and take as much detailed information as he wishes. The commission holds the balance. I said in an earlier debate—I shall not return to this in detail—that the Secretary of State can be ordered to provide information to the applicant. The commission can hold the balance as to what the special advocate can reveal to the applicant or the questions that he can put. That is a level playing field and a fair balance between the two sets of interests.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Duration of sections 21 to 23]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 15, line 14, leave out "subject to the following provisions of this section"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 123B, 123C and 123D.
This is an important group of amendments. Without going into any detail, at Second Reading speaker after speaker condemned the Bill on the grounds that it was far too big, that it contained far too much material that was not directly—or even seriously indirectly—connected with terrorism and that it was being rushed through in a way that did not give time for proper consideration. I believe that all of those condemnations are true.
For that reason, my honourable friends in another place joined the Conservatives in another place and put forward a detailed proposal that would establish a sunset clause to cover all of the Bill except for Part 12, which is about overseas bribery. That was debated at the beginning of the Committee stage. The proposal was that the Bill should be reconsidered, by virtue of a sunset clause, within a time that varied according to the contentiousness of the part that was being considered. It was proposed that the sunset clause relating to Part 4 should come into operation 12 months after the Bill was passed; that the sunset clause relating to Parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 should come into operation after two years; and that the sunset clause relating to all other parts of the Bill, with the exception of bits of Part 12, should come into operation after five years.

553
That proposal involved a real sunset clause, not simply a renewal of the Bill by means of a statutory instrument. It meant that the Bill would cease to have effect permanently unless, within the time specified in each of those cases, new primary legislation was passed to ensure that the Bill was dealt with—that the relevant part of the Bill was either dropped or dealt with again through the full parliamentary procedure.
We on these Benches believe that if the Bill is to go through in anything like its current form, it is essential that it should, at the appropriate time, receive the full consideration and involve the proper timescale that it currently lacks.
I shall obviously not go into any details. Unfortunately—because of the extreme speed with which the Bill was brought before your Lordships' House—we failed to table the necessary amendments to introduce a sunset clause for Parts 1, 2, 3 and 5, which were debated yesterday. Although they do not now appear in the current Marshalled List, we have put down sunset-clause amendments that can be debated on Monday and Tuesday. They will cover Parts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13.
In response to the debate in the House of Commons, the Government agreed to introduce one sunset clause and only one, in relation to Part 4. That appears in Clause 29 and provides for the initial effect of Part 4 to continue for 15 months. Thereafter it will be possible to renew that provision by statutory instrument for successive periods of not more than a year. At the end of five years a proper sunset clause will come into operation and if Part 4 is to continue, it will have to undergo the full parliamentary process before then.
We recognise and welcome that as a step in the right direction. However, it is only a step and in our view the step is not big enough. We believe that Clause 4 requires consideration much sooner. It introduces the wholly exceptional power to detain people without charge and without trial for an uncertain period of time because it depends on circumstances, in particular the willingness of a third country to accept the detainee who is outside the control of the Government.
We consider that it is quite inappropriate to say that this matter cannot be reconsidered fully through the proper parliamentary procedure until five years have elapsed. We believe that this procedure should be looked at as soon as possible so that we can consider, on a slightly more relaxed occasion, whether a remedy as draconian as this is still required in the light of the terrorist threat as it may appear in due course.
This is a matter of such importance that we believe that it should be brought back 12 months from the time when this Bill is passed. That would mean that the Government would have to reintroduce legislation after the Summer Recess next year. It would be possible to deal with it, with full, proper and due consideration, more quickly than the present Bill because there would be only one part to deal with. If, in a year's time, the terrorist threat still requires such
554
a remedy, it will be possible, according to our proposal, to consider the matter before time expires some time in the middle of December next year.
On Monday, when we consider other sunset clauses, we shall not return to this matter. At the moment we are considering the sunset clause on Part 4 only, but we firmly believe that we should return to the matter as soon as possible and, in our view, "as soon as possible" means within the next 12 months. That is twice the length of time that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead told us at Second Reading that he allowed for the Prevention of Terrorism Act for which he was responsible in 1974. We believe a year is enough time for such legislation and that we should reconsider Part 4 in a year's time. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: Perhaps I may say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, that we have great sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We have tabled a sunset clause amendment for what I hope will be a full debate on either Monday or, more likely, Tuesday of next week. We shall reserve our right to debate it then.
Lord Rooker: I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. With the best will in the world, it took a while for him to mention the fact that the sunset clause had been inserted. I took with a pinch of salt the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the other day. He claimed that the Bill had arrived unamended from the other place, ignoring the fact that the sunset clause had been inserted. That was a major change. I suspect that if we had inserted a one-year sunset clause, noble Lords would have said, "You have to do it every six months".
We have derogated from the European Convention on Human Rights, a convention to which this country has been signed up to under all governments, for 50 years. We have derogated for five years. That seems sensible to us. We accept the point about the importance and seriousness of this legislation and the effect on the liberty of individuals. We fully accept that we originally planned to bring it forward by order after five years. However, we have inserted a full sunset clause so that, if they have not been repealed earlier, the powers lapse on 10th November 2006.
As it stands, Clause 29 provides adequate parliamentary safeguards. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded us, after 15 months we shall have the opportunity to consider an affirmative resolution. We shall have the report from the independent reviewer who will check what is happening on the key clauses. Thereafter, there will be annual renewal on the same basis for five years.
We must remember that terrorists do not work on a six-month timeframe. It is obvious from what we have read in public print that it took years to plan the events of September 11th. They have planned for events which we do not know about. That has probably already taken place. Frankly, to work in one-year timeframes for primary legislation is to send a signal that we are not taking international terrorism seriously. I have made it clear today, although no one

555
seems to have taken it on board, that we are genuinely concerned and apprised of the speed at which the legislation is going through the House. We want to meet the desires of Members of both Houses. Hence the proposal at which I hinted or which I floated for noble Lords' consideration earlier today. My remarks then covered the whole Bill, not just one part. They covered the whole Act of Parliament, which I hope the Bill will become.
The designated derogation order has been approved for a life of five years. That is the benchmark we used for the sunset provision. There is the underlying fact that the threat we face has created that public emergency. We need to designate that before we can go for the order. Anyone who thinks that this is a fleeting emergency is not living in the real world. Parliament would not be taking the issues seriously—I think the public would see it that way—if every 12 months we were to introduce a brand new piece of legislation which had to go through all the processes in the normal, leisurely way. The implication is that there would not be emergency primary legislation each year but that it would go through the normal process. Such legislation may take six to seven months from introduction to Royal Assent. That would be quick for most Bills, but it would not be practical on this.
I accept that how the deadline is set is a matter of judgment. However, the derogation order from the ECHR is for five years. There will be further debates next week on sunset clauses on further important parts of the legislation. I shall be interested to hear the kind of case noble Lords make on Monday and Tuesday of next week.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, quite rightly, that the gentlemen who flew aeroplanes into the side of the World Trade Center were absolutely awful and we needed to do something about it. I do not believe for one moment that had this Bill been an Act of Parliament on 1st January 2001 it would have made one iota of difference to what happened. If anybody can show me any evidence that this Bill would have stopped the events of September 11th I shall buy him a pint afterwards.
Legislate in haste and repent at leisure. We must have a sunset clause. If the noble Lord believes that it takes seven months to get a Bill through Parliament, so be it. If there is a 12 or 18-month sunset clause, the Government should start to plan the new legislation a year before so they can do it at a gentle pace before the old Act falls. But I remain to be convinced that this Bill would have made a blind hit of difference to the plans of someone in Afghanistan, Hamburg or wherever to attend a flying school in America and say that he wanted to learn how to fly and was not interested in either taking off or landing. I do not believe that this measure would have had any effect. Please, please, let us listen to the words of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas
556
of Gresford and Lord Goodhart. Above all, we must listen to the Front Bench on this side about proper sunset clauses.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I do not intend to intervene more than very occasionally in this debate, from which I am learning a great deal. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I found his argument rather hard to take. One of the key issues that terrorists are concerned about is the setting aside of democratic process; indeed, it feeds the very arguments that they make. I believe that on consideration the noble Lord would agree that if there were evidence of further terrorist attacks—that is perfectly possible—this House and another place would find every means possible to get even primary legislation through Parliament extremely quickly. There would be no question of a delay of seven months. In my time in this House and in another place I have witnessed primary legislation being passed within hours, or a few days—certainly not the seven months to which the noble Lord referred.
If there is no requirement that primary legislation must be introduced again on an annual basis, it is all too probable that this measure will remain on the statute book and gradually will be taken for granted, which is exactly how liberties disappear. Liberties disappear by a process of gradual reduction, which always looks all right at the time. They finally disappear and people cease to be used to them.
I hope that the Government will reconsider very carefully their opposition to this particular amendment which has the support of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I have a serious fear that if terrorism begins to disappear—I do not argue that it will but it could—to allow this measure to remain on the statute book for a period of five years, with all the temptations that that offers to deal with people by an administrative and not a proper legal and constitutional method, is to take a very large risk for which there is no justification.
Lord Elton: One of the paradoxes of the fight against terrorism is that one must surrender a bit of what the terrorists are trying to take. One must lose some freedom to be able properly to resist them, and that is the subject of this legislation. That point is central to our constitution. It is essential, therefore, that it should not be taken for granted. To make one slight adjustment to the very powerful speech of the noble Baroness, there will be no need to do it in a hurry. As my noble friend Lord Onslow pointed out, one will know three years ahead, if that is the period, when the next piece of legislation is required. It can be drafted .at leisure in the light of experience of the legislation that is already being operated. It takes parliamentary time. But that is what parliamentary time is for. It is for the protection both of the security of the state and the liberty of its subjects. That is what we are here for and that is what we should be doing.
Lord Rooker: The idea of having fresh primary legislation every year is not credible. That is what is being asked for.

557
We have derogated already for five years. The pressure on us would be enormous to reduce that. I must say to the noble Baroness that we cannot go on reducing forever. The derogation was a major step. It was not one taken lightly. I am sure that she fully accepts that. That in itself has a defined shelf life. I cannot visualise what the situation will be in five years—or ten years because there can be a further advance on that.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were correct. In some ways we are giving up a little of what we have in order to protect the rest. That is the price that we must pay. The basic concept is that our liberal democracy is under threat from those who wish to destroy it.
What do we do? Do we acquiesce to their demands in order to keep our principles? That would end up with us being destroyed. All we ask for is tightly controlled constitutional—I do not accept that they are not constitutional—powers of a limited duration. They will be fully scrutinised and reviewed by an independent reviewer—who happens to be a Member of this House—after 15 months and then every year.
Earlier today I offered the opportunity to have a further look at the way the Act works at that point in time. We are going up every avenue that we can to meet demands. But to have a tighter constant revolution of primary legislation would not make sense. Clearly, next week we shall debate these issues on the other parts of the Bill.
The derogation and the removal of people's liberty are absolutely and crucially important. The sunset clause in this part of the Bill is there for a specific reason. It is as well that it is there. We have put it there because, having considered the matter and listened to what has been said, in our view it is the best means of protecting our own liberties and making sure that we get legislation that Parliament can look at on a regular basis. It is not as though we shall not visit this matter again for five years. If that was the case, I would not have a leg to stand on in asking for the amendments to he rejected.
Lord Goodhart: Nothing in this group of amendments prevents the Government from getting what they want in terms of the right to detain suspected terrorists. All they impose is a duty on ourselves and on the Government to bring the matter back for further and fuller consideration within a period of 12 months. That is a small and reasonable price to pay for this extremely exceptional power to detain without trial, which may, I admit, be a necessary option in the special circumstances which now prevail. That may or may not be the case in 12 months' time.
There is nothing in the amendment that prevents the Government from bringing forward new primary legislation in 12 months' time if they feel that it is necessary to continue this legislation in force. But it has been clear from the debate today that there is a great deal that is controversial about this part of the Bill. We have had lengthy debates and very powerful
558
challenges to the Government over, for instance, the SIAC procedure and whether it is adequate to meet the tasks that will be placed on it. So I must say that I am deeply disappointed by the Minister's reaction.
I have nothing to add to what was said eloquently by several speakers in this short debate—in particular by my noble friend Lady Williams and the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We shall unquestionably want to return to the matter later during the Bill's passage, either through pressing our amendments or, if we think it a better course, supporting the amendment that we understand that the Conservatives will shortly be tabling. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123B to 123D not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Exclusion of legal proceedings]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 16, line 7, at end insert "save to review compliance with any rules made under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68)."
The noble Baroness said: Following the Second Reading debate in another place, the shadow Home Secretary consulted lawyers distinguished in the field to seek advice on whether, under the Bill as drafted, appeals on a point of law would include appeals on the point of SIAC failing to follow its own procedures. In debate in another place, my honourable friend Oliver Letwin asked the Home Secretary to reassure us that if it turns out that the ability to appeal on a point of law does not provide for appeals relating to the procedure of SIAC, the Home Secretary would immediately amend the law to ensure that such appeals were possible.
The Home Secretary agreed to,
"examine that matter for the purpose of clarification between now and the Bill's entry into the House of Lords".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/01; col. 392.]
The Attorney-General will recall that I referred to that agreement during Second Reading in your Lordships' House. The Attorney-General was kind enough to respond. He said:
"The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked whether or not a point of law could include the fact that SIAC failed to follow its own procedures. I believe the better view is that it could. So there is a proper judicial route".—[Official Report, 27/11/01; col. 284.]
I read that response to mean acceptance by the Attorney-General that there is a grey area. I hope that, in the spirit of that response, the Government have further considered the matter and will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Amendment No. 125 is grouped with the amendment. We are concerned about the matter of exclusion of legal proceedings. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain why no court or tribunal other than SIAC could question the actions of the Secretary of State.
Earl Russell: I should also like to touch on Amendment No. 125. Clause 32 bears a remarkably close resemblance to the words in the Foreign Compensation Act 1950, which gave rise to the case of Anisminit, of which we have heard a good deal. That is a rather unfortunate precedent. In fact, it could be described as a red rag in front of the corpse.
I should also like to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about five minutes ago. He said, not for the first time, that if we are to preserve our liberties, we have to sacrifice a large part of them—we must react; we must do things. With respect, that is hypothesis; it is not necessarily fact. If he looks at the history of state reaction to terrorism over the centuries, terrorism has benefited a great deal more from the over-reaction of the state than from its under-reaction. We might all bear that point in mind.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: Amendment No. 124 deals with a specific point and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was right in quoting what I said at the end of the Second Reading debate. I said that in my view the better view was that the Court of Appeal would view the question of compliance with procedure in appropriate cases as a matter of law, and therefore one in which they would have jurisdiction.
I understand the point that she is making. I still hold that view but I cannot say to the noble Baroness that I have taken my thoughts on that point any further. I shall therefore invite her to withdraw the amendment today. I shall give further thought as to whether I can dispel the lurking doubt that I have left in her mind and shall return to the matter.
Amendment No. 125 is potentially more wide-ranging because that picks up the effect of the SIAC procedure. I have spent a great deal of time today dealing with aspects of the SIAC procedure. I must take issue, I hope courteously, with a suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. On Second Reading I said that judicial review was an inferior procedure to deal with these problems and he described that as nonsense. I am sorry he described that as nonsense because it was not. It was absolutely right.
The European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal case stated that,
"the availability of judicial review and habeas corpus to review the decision to detain Mr Chahal before the domestic courts did not satisfy the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights".
It did not permit the review of the reasonableness of the decision of the Secretary of State. The SIAC procedure was developed in order to deal with the criticisms which the European Court of Human Rights had.
That is why the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—I hope that I do not misquote him—believes that SIAC was a fair compromise. It dealt with those
560
problems. As I said at Second Reading, the SIAC procedure, or the Canadian variant of it, was proposed by Amnesty, the Air Centre and the Joint Welfare of Immigrants Association to the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal case. The short answer to the proposition that judicial review would be better than SIAC is answered conclusively; it is not. There is nothing that SIAC cannot do that judicial review could do.
Why do we believe that SIAC procedure is better. It is because SIAC has a High Court judge, so it has the judicial element, and another judge in addition to a person with expertise in security matters and therefore can judge well and properly the security information. It has the competence already to consider two key issues: national security and immigration. Those are the issues it has been set up to deal with and those are the issues it would be required to deal with under the Bill. It was there to meet the points raised by the Strasbourg Court. I invite Members of the Committee to consider whether there is any point in setting up a specialist body of that kind and then not inviting it to do the work.
Let me pose the question in this way: let us say one went down the route of saying, "We want to have judicial review but we accept that it is necessary to deal with the special security-sensitive information". What would the court look like then? We would start with a judicial review court which would have a High Court judge. We have that. Then we would say, "We have to find a procedure to deal with the sensitive intelligence information. What is the best way of dealing with that? We must ensure that the tribunal has the information and that there is some way of someone testing it on behalf of the appellant if the appellant cannot see it. Let us have a special advocate. Let us ensure that there are good procedures to make sure that the applicant can see as much as possible".
Ultimately, we have the body which is SIAC. The commission is in place and it would not make sense to look for alternatives. We have in place an appeal to the Court of Appeal and appeal from there to the House of Lords. The entire judicial route is provided. As always, I understand the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I suggest that it would be a misconception to consider that the form of judicial ouster in the Bill is unique.
The major difference between the Anisminit case, which is a pertinent case to which to refer, is that the Anisminit case stated that the decision of the Minister is final. There was no judicial review, or at least that was what was attempted in the clause. Here we do not seek to say that the decision of the Secretary of State is final. We say instead that a judicial process with a High Court judge and other specialists will review the decision of the Secretary of State, not that his decision would be final without judicial scrutiny. I shall give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Is not the flaw in his argument that of treating the SIAC procedure and judicial review as mutually exclusive? I know what has been said by my

561
noble friend Lord Lester and I believe that he is most likely to be right in this; namely, that with judicial review, 99 times out of 100 the answer from the court will be, "We are not going to review your case because we think that the proper course is for you to go to SIAC". However, perhaps in only one out of 100 cases judicial review would have a role to play. What is the justification for excluding judicial review and for setting a precedent here, which is an extremely important feature, by going to the length of actually removing the right of judicial review in statute? Why not simply leave it in place?
Lord Goldsmith: I hope that the debates which have taken place on Second Reading and in Committee yesterday and this evening may have indicated that in what was quite an emotional argument about the absence of judicial review implying the absence of judicial scrutiny was in fact a misplaced concern. I do not seek to make a criticism because I entirely understand how it has come about. However, that is not the point, and the purpose of our debates is to try to clarify any misunderstandings and to recognise the real issues.
Lord Neill of Bladen: I should like to intervene on a minor point. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is usually so accurate in all his statements that when he makes a not entirely accurate comment I venture to point it out. I think he said that there was a distinction between the Anisminit case and this one, in that it referred to the decision of a Minister not being called into question. On the contrary, it did not do so. It comprised exactly the same language as we have here. Rather, it was the decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission which could not be called into question. Thus it is an exact parallel to the position in the case before the Committee.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of that point. Does the noble Earl wish to intervene?
The Earl of Onslow: I wished only to observe that when lawyers say that they are "grateful" for an intervention, basically what they mean is, "Oh bother, he has caught me out. I have fallen hook, line and sinker". That is what caused me to laugh.
Lord Goldsmith: When I wish to use such language, the noble Earl should not worry, it will be clear that that is what I am saying.
I am anxious that the debate should proceed on an entirely accurate basis and thus I am grateful for the noble Lord's clarification. I do not think that there was an appeal from the commission to the Court of Appeal. To that extent it is right that here there is a route from the commission to the Court of Appeal. In that we have a wonderful result for the lawyers; both of us are right to some extent—the noble Lord entirely and I at least in part.
562
But the essential point is this. No one has yet pointed out, once one looks at what SIAC actually does, what it is that judicial review would add. I have not heard anybody suggest something that judicial review would actually add. SIAC will do all that judicial review would do, and more. I make that point to emphasise its ability to review facts in a way that judicial review does not.
Lord Marlesford: Surely what we are in a way talking about is the appearance of justice. There may be few cases in which this will apply, but people are somehow uneasy that the new procedures will exclude the traditional procedures which are seen as a safety net for justice.
Lord Goldsmith: I invite the Committee to look upon it as a specialist court. We have other kinds of specialist court which do a good and better job. This court was set up precisely because the judicial review procedure and, indeed, the habeas corpus procedure, did not provide an adequate safeguard in the Chahal case, so said the European Court of Human Rights and, indeed, the "three wise men" procedure that we had at that stage. The matter can go to the Court of Appeal; it can go to the House of Lords. That is the point.
I hope that the debate has demonstrated that there is not anything that judicial review would add and, instead, that judicial review would not be as good as this.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. It is not fair to say that the debate has demonstrated that there is no role for judicial review. All that the debate has demonstrated is that no one sitting here tonight can give a clear-cut case where it might be relevant. As my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, it would be a foolish person who said that in no circumstances could it be relevant.
If the Attorney-General is right, leaving the normal provisions and protections in the Bill will damage no one; it will cause no obstruction to the intent of the Government or to the Secretary of State in future times. But if it is the case that the occasion arises where judicial review becomes relevant, the traditional remedy is there.
The noble and learned Lord is in a logical impasse in arguing as he does that, "There is absolute certainty that judicial review is not necessary but we insist on retaining the clause in the Bill". If it is absolutely unnecessary, why do we need the clause?
Lord Goldsmith: I am talking about the reality of the situation. I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords of the merits of the SIAC procedure. I will never persuade the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, but that is a cross I shall have to bear.
I invite noble Lords to consider that judicial review will add nothing; no one has shown that it will add anything—except possibly this: it will give the ability

563
for delay and expense, which will assist no one. That is all the debate, I respectfully suggest, now comes down to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in what he said about the public perception of these proceedings. The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ; that means that it is in the name of the Queen. That is why proceedings are called "Regina against the Secretary of State ex parte on the application of X". Judicial review is the same inheritor of the prerogative writs of mandamus and certiorari and so on.
Habeas corpus was first talked about in 1200. The other prerogative writs are of a similar age. It is where the Queen, on behalf of a person under her protection within her realm, calls to account a Minister or whoever, or a public authority, and, on the application of that person, makes them explain what they have done. Contrast that with what the Government are trying to do with this immigration procedure.
I do not think that the Government want to treat this as an immigration matter but they want to avoid having to call people to an ordinary court of law, where there would be a charge, a trial, a sentence. It is far easier to go along with the immigration procedure. After all, it does not affect the Brits or involve the terrorists in Northern Ireland; it affects foreigners who enter this country. We do not really want them, we cannot deport them, and so we are going to deal with them in a different way. "We are not going to call the Queen in", say the Government, "and use the traditional methods; we are going to go along to a procedure which was not intended or constructed to deal with the liberty of the subject but to deal with deportation orders". That is why SIAC came into being. It was not to protect the liberty of the subject or anything of that sort, but to check whether a deportation order made by the Minister was correct.
When one has judicial review or habeas corpus, it is essential that the person who makes the application in the name of the Crown knows everything upon which the Crown relies. In other words, all the information and argument that is placed before the court must be disclosed to the applicant. As we have discussed, it may be necessary in certain circumstances to have safeguards in place in the form of public interest immunity certificates. It is better occasionally, although not very often, to forgo the proceedings and to allow the applicant to have his way rather than to reveal secrets. That is a view taken by the Government. But within that procedure there are safeguards that we have grown up with. They are part of the fabric of this country. We know what it means. It is something that we have inherited.
Here, in the face of an emergency in America, we are adopting strange procedures. We are detaining without trial in a way that we never have done, at least not in recent times, even in the face of the most extreme outrages such as the Brighton bombing, the Canary Wharf bombing and all the others. We have never
564
found it necessary to abandon the traditional safeguards: trial, the criminal courts or the use of prerogative writs.
What judicial review and habeas corpus add is legitimacy—history and legitimacy, the sort of things that we seek to defend in our constitution. If the Minister does not see that, I am sorry. What he is putting in their place is, in a sense, a low-grade procedure which has the unique quality that the liberty of the person concerned is to be taken away and that person will not know why. I find that completely unacceptable.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I know that the Minister had to listen to an enormous amount of material during this debate, but will he kindly correct one remark. He said that no one had made an argument for anything extra that judicial review might add. I did, in my Second Reading speech. The Minister may have thought that it was not—as 1066 And All That would put it—memorable, but I did set out such an argument. I shall not elaborate on the matter now because I am about to return to it in relation to the next amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall be brief. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for what I felt was quite a positive response. I hope that the noble and learned Lord and other Ministers have noted the extraordinary restraint on the part of the Opposition Front Bench in the debates on judicial review. We have adopted that approach because, although we are unhappy at the exclusion of judicial review, we understand the need to try and assist whenever we can in relation to the speedy passage of the Bill. In that sense, we felt that the minimum we should ask for was the possibility to appeal on a point of law involving the procedures of SIAC and where it fails to follow its own procedures. We wait with somewhat baited breath in the hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will dispel our lurking doubts on Report.
It has been difficult for us to continue to show such restraint. There is still time in the coming days, through the next two stages of the Bill's progress, to unleash some of that restraint. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: I apologise to the Minister if I have ignored other ouster cases. I remind him that I believe in the principles of natural justice. I therefore tabled a Question for Written Answer on 18th October asking what previous attempts had been made to restrict judicial review by statute and what had been the results of those attempts. I asked on Second Reading whether I could hope for an Answer before Committee. At

565
three o'clock it had not yet arrived. If I miss out any precedent, as soon as I am informed of it I shall, of course, take account of it.
Lord Rooker: When the noble Earl gets his Answer, I hope that he will also get a written apology from one of the permanent secretaries. His Question has been batted around from one ministry to another. It arrived at my department on Tuesday—the day that he made his Second Reading speech. I apologise to him, because it will fall to me to answer him, but I shall see that he gets a proper apology from those who have batted his Question round. It is unacceptable that he has been held back by the delay in answering his Question. I have a draft response, which I am happy to give to him or to read out to him from the Dispatch Box.
Earl Russell: I should be most grateful if the Minister would do that. I think that it would be most helpful to the Committee.
Lord Rooker: I shall read out the Question and the Answer so that everything is on the record. The noble Earl asked the Government:
"What previous attempts had been made to restrict the right to judicial review by parliamentary statute and what had been the results of such attempts".
The draft Answer says:
"There are numerous examples of statutory provisions which prevent review by the courts to a greater or lesser extent and it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list. Such provisions vary enormously, depending on the context in which they appear. For example, a statute may provide that a certificate by a Secretary of State shall be conclusive evidence of the matters contained therein. Alternatively, it may provide that a particular decision shall be final or conclusive or that it shall not be questioned in any court. In many cases, an alternative review process is provided for. Many of the statutory provisions in question have not been tested in the courts. Some of those that have been tested have been held not to prevent review—sometimes a limited review—by the courts".
That is the end of the Answer.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. I thought that something like that had probably happened. As my late noble friend Lady Seear always used to say, it is not conspiracy, it is cock-up. That happens to all of us. I thank the Minister very warmly.
I noticed that his Answer was full of qualification. There were certain cases in which the courts had not been restrained by such provisions. Some of the examples were a good deal less far-reaching than the ones that we are considering here.
If I say that this is a grey area, I think that I am entitled to say that it is a very dark shade of grey. It is a doubtful constitutional area that brings some very wide questions into play. A lot of them extend a great deal wider than the Bill and are arguably more important than the whole of the Bill.
The defence of both Ministers has been throughout that SIAC is, in effect, a form of judicial review. In other words, no significant restriction is imposed. That is the maid's baby defence—it is a very little one.
566
My noble friend Lady Williams said that when our liberties are restricted, that is done by gradual reduction. I think of a case involving King James XI and I, who wanted to control the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. His first move was to request that a meeting scheduled for a particular day could, as a favour to him, be postponed from the morning to the afternoon because he wished to attend. The elders of the kirk instantly recognised that request as the thin end of the wedge but decided that, were they to oppose it, they would appear ridiculous. They were right. It was the thin end of a wedge that went right through to the piece of wood to which it was applied. I cannot help wondering whether the SIAC defence is another in that line.
A full judicial review enables the court to look at the whole case. The SIAC procedure directs people strictly to certification. The Bill directs the proceedings of the court through the wording of Clause 34(3):
"Where this section applies the Commission must begin its substantive deliberations on the asylum appeal by considering the statements in the Secretary of State's certificate".
That does not provide for any proper examination of the asylum claim or give the opportunity to consider the certificate in context.
On Second Reading, I raised the Nelson Mandela point that, depending on the situation, not all forms of terrorism are necessarily equally grave. The point made by the UNHCR is memorable, even if mine is not. It advances the major and material point that the exclusion of the asylum claim makes it impossible to consider the proportionality of the Secretary of State's certificate. If the claim is excluded, the judicial review is not sufficient and will not cover the whole case.
The number of Prime Ministers of newly independent Commonwealth countries since the war who have been in British prisons is high. How they related to this country when in power had a great deal to do—in some cases to my certain knowledge, in others in my belief—with how they had been treated by this country. One fine Sunday afternoon in August, my wife and I pretended to be tourists and went down the river to Greenwich. All the flags were flying at half mast, and we were told that that was being done for Mr. Jomo Kenyatta. Not all the people who have been regarded as terrorists necessarily need to be treated exactly the same way. Jomo Kenyatta's death was mourned in this country, by the white population of Kenya and by many people who would cheerfully have certificated him under the Bill. In future, are such people to be totally barred from free consideration in this country? Can we consider that question without proper judicial review?
More serious is that the proposed procedure makes a mess of the delicate web of authority woven between the executive, Parliament, the courts and the principles of natural justice—one of the few checks and balances in our constitution. That is far more far-reaching in its effect than anything that applies to the Bill. Because the common law is not entirely dependent on Parliament, we do not have an elective dictatorship. The common law rests on precedent. It does not owe its authority to Parliament. One can trace the common

567
law back to 1189 and the limits of legal memory. In the 1960s, a case was decided on a charter of 1189, which was nearly a century before the beginnings of Parliament. So there are vires in the common law which do not originate from Parliament. That leaves one to reflect upon the question hinted at by Sir John Laws in his article in Public Law: what were the vires by which Parliament was first set up? The relationship between Parliament and the common law is an area which has not been thoroughly explored and which perhaps sometimes we may be prudent not to explore.
The principles of natural justice, or at least the few basic central principles of natural justice—to hear both sides and not to be judge and party in one's own court—go back beyond the limits of legal memory; that is, beyond the common law itself. So no lawyer can have an authoritative opinion on their origin. It is a long time ago, but the Government ought to know some of these things before legislating in an area which I do not believe they fully understand.
The question, "What is the comparative authority of the principles of natural justice and an Act of Parliament?", is not clear. I believe all of us in this Chamber agree that an Act of Parliament can do whatever it likes. But it remains for the courts to decide what an Act of Parliament has actually done.
The courts decided a long time ago that they were going to interpret Acts of Parliament according to the intention of the legislator. That goes right back to the days of Chief Justice Bearford, when judges actually helped to write the statute. He said in one memorable judgment, where it was being argued whether something was to be excluded because it was not in the statute, or included because it was implicit in the statute:
"He that drew the statute meant to put it in and only left it out through inadvertence. It shall therefore be construed to be in the statute".
In another case in a parallel jurisdiction in Bologna there was a law making it a capital offence to shed blood in the palazzo. One of the judges was being shaved in the palazzo, and the barber nicked him and shed blood. He brought a case against the barber under the statute. But his brethren, his fellow judges, said that that was not in the intention of the statute so the case was dismissed.
It is along those lines that judges continue to say that something is so unreasonable that Parliament cannot possibly have intended it. In fact, it is the duty of judges to interpret the intention of Parliament according to the principles of natural justice, because when they first began to interpret the intention of Parliament, there were absolutely no records, save the statute itself, on which they could do it. That remains the case.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in 1996, said that if Parliament intends to confer a power to act unfairly—that is, a power contrary to the principles of natural justice—it must say so in express words. That seems to me to be a phrase pregnant with endless possibilities, not all of which I would be happy to see us forced to explore.
568
We should remember, to get this in perspective, that the first Acts of Parliament prohibiting murder were passed as recently as 1956. Indeed, I can remember making my maiden speech at the Oxford Union on it. So something absolutely central in our law rested on common law and on precedent long before there was any statute that could embody it.
There is here a web and a balance. We do not have many checks and balances here; we do not have a constitution; we do not have a recorded foundation; but we have a common law with which Parliament occasionally has to compete for authority. I understand that that is extremely inconvenient to Ministers; but that is precisely why it is so important.
Lord Neill of Bladen: In his review of the history of natural justice the noble Earl appears to have overlooked the 16th century case where natural justice was traced back to the Book of Genesis, because God, before expelling Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, gave them both an opportunity to respond to the charge; none was granted to the serpent.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Lord. I was familiar with that case. However, since we are in an area where, after our debate on incitement to religious hatred last week we are facing a religiously plural society, I thought it best not to take up that line of argument because it led us into byways where I did not think we wanted to go.
Lord Goldsmith: I hesitate to intervene. I want to make three points, if I may, because I have said so much about this area. First, there are many other examples of judicial ouster. Dare I quote back to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688? It provides for an ouster jurisdiction of the courts because nothing which is said in debates or proceedings in Parliament ought to be questioned in any court or place outside Parliament. That has been a successful judicial ouster.
There are other examples in statutes. We hate referred to Anisminit. In that case the House of Lords said that if it was not a decision it could review it. It was an ouster. Section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, RIPA, which has been referred to already, and the Terrorism Act are examples, and there are others. I suggest that there is not the constitutional problem which has been identified.
Secondly, on the idea of a judicial scrutiny by another route, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will forgive me. I take exception to his expression of SIAC being a low-grade process. A process with a High Court judge and another judge as a security expert, if I may so put it, with an appeal to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords is not a low-grade process. It is an important, robust judicial process
Thirdly, why do we say that that is more appropriate? It is more appropriate because it has the immigration experience, the security experience and can examine issues that the judicial review does not examine. For example, it has to look at the

569
circumstances at the time that the matter comes before it. Judicial review is limited to reviewing a decision when it was made by the Minister. For that reason, it looks more at the substance than the judicial review would do.
Finally, I have touched previously on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The SIAC procedure in this Bill deals with a certification. But the rest of the immigration decisions are themselves subject to the laid down procedures in relation to those decisions—an asylum application or a right to enter, for whatever reason it may be. That is reflected in the Bill. Clause 27(7) and (8) recognise that, because the key to this detention is an existing power under immigration law to detain, that may be the subject of an appeal; and if it is an appeal which is going to SIAC then Clause 27(8) provides that SIAC shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, deal with the two sets of proceedings together.
I stand unrepentantly on the proposition that there is not a practical effect given by judicial review that is not given by SIAC. Therefore, I hope that the clause will stand part.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has taken exception to my description of the commission as low grade. That was perhaps excessive and I withdraw it.
I am sure he would agree that were it not for the clause that he seeks to put forward it would be an inferior tribunal which would be subject to certiorari through the High Court. That is the traditional role of certiorari: to govern inferior jurisdictions.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: With regard to other ousters, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the British Nationality Act, RIPA, and the Bill of Rights 1688. None of those has an ouster in circumstances where the liberty of the subject is at stake in the way that it is here.
Lord Goldsmith: The Bill of Rights? The Terrorism Act? RIPA?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: On the Bill of Rights, the ouster to which the noble and learned Lord referred was simply that Members of this House and another place could not be prosecuted for what is said within these walls. That is a very different kettle of fish.
Earl Russell: I hope that I may return to the Bill of Rights for a moment. First, I think that the Minister was not in this Chamber when we passed the Defamation Act 1996. I think when he recollects that he might realise that he has picked up a two-edged sword.
Lord Goldsmith: I should have thought that he would eventually, but that is a different issue.
Earl Russell: I think that all parties concerned in that picked up a two-edged sword. What the Bill of Rights
570
created was a traditional mediaeval liberty—an area within which the officers of the law did not enter. It is a privilege which survived in Oxford and Cambridge colleges until quite recently. It is a very different principle indeed from the one invoked here. It is a principle of internal self-government. It is a local autonomy like the City of London. It is not an ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts which in any way is intended to diminish the liberty of the subject. I think any Member of Parliament will agree that parliamentary privilege, whatever it may have done nation-wide, has not diminished the liberty of Members of Parliament.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Legal proceedings: derogation]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 17, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) Section 6 of the Special Immigration Appeals Act 1997 (c. 68) shall apply to proceedings before the appropriate appeal court by virtue of subsection (3)(a) or (b) as it applies to proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission."
The noble Lord said: I hope that I can deal with this briefly. It is in the nature of a probing amendment. There is a problem when cases go from SIAC to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. As we all know, frequently points of law cannot be decided in the absence of the facts. For instance, the question whether there is any evidence to justify a particular finding of fact is in itself a point of law.
Therefore, there may well be the need when cases go to the Court of Appeal to deal with matters which have been dealt with in front of SIAC by the special representative. I wish to be satisfied that in that case there will be a mechanism by which the special representative will be entitled to appear in the Court of Appeal, and no doubt on the basis of rules made in the Court of Appeal, for a hearing in camera and in the absence of the appellant. But it is clearly necessary that his case may be put. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 126. Section 6, which enables rules to be made for a special representative's appearance, will apply in the Court of Appeal as well as in SIAC itself. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: We believe that the amendment is totally unnecessary as the indications from the Court of Appeal are that it considers it has an inherent jurisdiction to involve the special advocate should it wish to do so. I shall try to speak as briefly as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
In the case of Rehman, the Court of Appeal said that it considered it would have the inherent jurisdiction to call the special advocate involved in the SIAC case if that would help the court deal with the proceedings before it. That being so, making provision in primary legislation on this point does not seem necessary. But more than that, it could actually be unhelpful. There are now a number of bodies which have the special advocate procedure and from which appeals lie to the Court of Appeal. The Prescribed Organisations Appeals Commission is one such body. If we legislated in respect of one of these bodies only—in this case

571
SIAC—that would call into question what the Court of Appeal (or its equivalent bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland) might be able to do in respect of other bodies with a special advocate procedure.
Although we accept that the special advocate may on occasions be able to assist the course of justice by appearing before the Court of Appeal—or before the House of Lords—we do not think that the amendment is necessary or desirable.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. I still have some doubts about that because, as I understand it, there is no decision by which the Court of Appeal has allowed a special advocate to appear in front of it. It has merely expressed the view—it is an obiter view—that it might have or would have the jurisdiction to do so if it so wished. I should prefer to see this matter on the face of the Bill in order to put it beyond any doubt. It is clearly important that such a jurisdiction should exist. We do not want to be faced with a situation in which we must pass rapidly an emergency Bill in order to ensure that the special advocate has such a right to
572
appeal, if called upon to do so. However, this is not a matter which I consider appropriate to take any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Certificate that Convention does not apply]:
[Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Universal Primary Education
  Universal Primary Education
  M4 Hostage Situation: Police Involvement
  M4 Hostage Situation: Police Involvement
  European Arrest Warrant: "Xenophobia"
  European Arrest Warrant: "Xenophobia"
  Terrorism Act 2000: Detention
  Terrorism Act 2000: Detention
  Criminal Courts: District Tier Proposal
  Criminal Courts: District Tier Proposal
  Jurors and District Judges: Allowances
  Jurors and District Judges: Allowances
  Freedom of Information Act: Implementation
  Freedom of Information Act: Implementation
  Lord Chancellor's Department DEL
  Lord Chancellor's Department DEL
  Court Service Annual Report
  Court Service Annual Report
  Manchester to London: Non-regulated Train Fares
  Manchester to London: Non-regulated Train Fares
  London Underground Performance Regime
  London Underground Performance Regime
  Best Value Inspection Service
  Best Value Inspection Service
  Building Regulations: Uncontrolled Fires
  Building Regulations: Uncontrolled Fires
  Farm (Safety) Awareness Days
  Farm (Safety) Awareness Days
  Recyclable Waste
  Recyclable Waste
  Open Access for the Countryside
  Open Access for the Countryside
  Countryside Stewardship Claims
  Countryside Stewardship Claims
  East Midlands: National Forest
  East Midlands: National Forest
  Food and Farming Policy Commission
  Food and Farming Policy Commission
  Sheep Brain Pool Experiment
  Sheep Brain Pool Experiment
  Business Tourism
  Business Tourism
  Stakeholder Pensions
  Stakeholder Pensions
  Winter Fuel Payments
  Winter Fuel Payments
  State Pension
  State Pension
  Food Standards Agency DEL
  Food Standards Agency DEL
  HIV Infected Healthcare Workers
  HIV Infected Healthcare Workers
  E-democracy
  E-democracy
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON E-DEMOCRACY (MISC17)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON E-DEMOCRACY (MISC17)
  Events Industry: Vocational Qualifications
  Events Industry: Vocational Qualifications
  Education Action Zones
  Education Action Zones